Oregon Standoff: The Impact of Federal Grazing Laws
The standoff at a federal wildlife reserve in Oregon has highlighted a longstanding conflict over grazing rights on federally owned land, a debate that has persisted for decades across the West. This article delves into the complexities of this issue, examining the perspectives of both ranchers and conservationists.
Few locals agree with the methods used by the armed activists who took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon. However, they share frustrations with federal agencies managing about half of the state's land.
Ranchers have long complained about the government's increasing emphasis on environmental protection, which they believe leads to more restrictions on grazing, timber harvesting, and mineral extraction on lands that have supported their families for generations.
“All of that makes the ranchers feel like they are under siege, and they push back,” said John Freemuth, a professor of public policy at Boise State University in Idaho.
Conversely, some conservationists argue that ranchers benefit from a government subsidy that allows them to graze on public lands at discounted rates, which they claim damages the West's natural treasures.
How Much Land Does the Government Own?
The federal government owns approximately 640 million acres, nearly 28% of U.S. land, according to a 2014 report by the Congressional Research Service. Most of this land is in 11 Western states and Alaska.
Until the 1970s, much of the land west of the Mississippi River was open for farming or livestock raising. This changed with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which required federal agencies to support other uses, including environmental conservation.
How Much Federally Owned Land Is Open for Grazing?
The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service manage most of this land, allowing livestock grazing on about 155 million acres and 95 million acres, respectively. Permits and leases are generally valid for 10 years and renewable if conditions are met.
What Does the Federal Grazing Program Cost Taxpayers?
The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service charge fees for grazing, but they spend more on managing these programs than they collect. A Government Accountability Office report found a $115 million difference between costs and receipts in 2004.
Other studies suggest the cost to taxpayers is higher. The Center for Biological Diversity reported a $125 million difference in 2014, with fees set at $1.35 per animal unit month. Had the government charged the average private rate, receipts would have been $261 million, according to the study.
Last year, the fee increased to $1.69, still below market rates.
Why Does the Federal Government Charge Less Than Private Landowners?
Congress set the pricing formula in 1978 to avoid disruptions to the Western livestock industry. The formula, continued indefinitely by President Reagan's 1986 executive order, sets a minimum fee of $1.35 per animal unit month, reviewed annually.
What Is the Cost to the Environment?
Environmental activists argue that low fees lead to overgrazing, soil loss, invasive species, and harm to native predators and other species. Some conservation groups call for a review of the pricing formula and restrictions on grazing.
“There are no grazing rights,” said Travis Bruner, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project. “But there are lots of grazing ‘wrongs.’”
Ranchers contest these claims, arguing they are better land stewards than the federal government. They fear increased fees could drive small and medium-sized ranches out of business, noting that public lands are less productive and lack amenities compared to private rangelands.
Originally posted by the LA Times.