34 Cent Increase

[katqanna]

Well, with alot of the controversy on grazing leases going on the BLM and FS just released their 2015 grazing fee. It will now be a whopping $1.69 an AUM, up 34 cents from $1.35, but only temp based on the formula.

The annually determined grazing fee is computed by using a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM/HM for livestock grazing on public lands in Western states. The figure is then calculated according to three factors – current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production. 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.

I dont know if y'all read the study that CBD paid for...

Study: Livestock Grazing on Public Lands Cost Taxpayers $1 Billion Over Past Decade

WASHINGTON— A new analysis finds U.S. taxpayers have lost more than $1 billion over the past decade on a program that allows cows and sheep to graze on public land. Last year alone taxpayers lost $125 million in grazing subsidies on federal land. Had the federal government charged fees similar to grazing rates on non-irrigated private land, the program would have made $261 million a year on average rather than operate at a staggering loss, the analysis finds.

Its not much different than the 2012 Congressional Report that stated they were operating at a major loss and were not competitive.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

No doubt it's a complicated fiscal issue. It's very reasonable to question the subsidy of public land AUM's. The downside is when ranch "X" goes under and subdivides their private land, which just happens to be mule deer, elk, or antelope winter range--see the recently discussed Bridger mule deer herd. Most subsidies become a creature of their own and cannot easily be removed or continued. Hard to think of an instance where this is not the case.

In this case it is the fault of the recipient, who for decades runs a thin margin and assumes nothing will change. It is also the fault of the governing agency, who hamstrings itself by making its internal procedure so difficult to follow that it's functionally impossible to actually manage land.

 

[sbhooper]

The ranchers will not have that extra .30 to spend on padlocks to lock off the BLM. What a shame.

 

[captaincoot]

Around here they make us cattle guys bid for grazing rights. think 28 dollars a AMU this year won.

 

[mtmiller]

The Obama administration Friday announced it is raising the fee to graze livestock on public lands for the first time in a decade.

The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service beginning in March will charge $1.69 per animal unit month (AUM) for livestock that graze across roughly 235 million acres of public lands, a rise from the $1.35 the agencies have charged for the past eight years and the maximum one-year hike allowed under law.

The last fee hike occurred in 2005, when the cost per AUM went from $1.43 to $1.79.

An AUM is a month's worth of forage for one cow and her calf, one horse, or five goats or sheep.

The fee will apply to more than 8,000 permits on Forest Service lands and nearly 18,000 grazing permits and leases administered by BLM.

The formula for yearly grazing fees -- established by Congress in 1978 and extended indefinitely by the Reagan administration -- takes into account current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices and the cost of livestock production. All three indexes were up in 2014, but private lease rates and beef prices outpaced the cost of production, said BLM spokesman Tom Gorey.

"The rise in the fee means that livestock industry conditions are better than they were previously," Gorey said.

Environmentalists and fiscal watchdogs have long argued that the government's grazing fees are artificially low and encourage feeding cows off the public estate, where the bovines can harm watersheds and native wildlife. The Government Accountability Office in 2005 found that BLM and the Forest Service have spent several times as much money to administer their grazing programs as they took in from fees.

A report last month from the Center for Biological Diversity, a critic of public lands grazing, found that the agencies were appropriated $143.6 million for grazing programs in 2014 but took in only $18.5 million in grazing receipts. It also found federal grazing fees were less than 7 percent what it costs to graze livestock on nonirrigated private lands in the West.

Randi Spivak, director of CBD's public lands program, said the federal government should scrap the grazing fee formula altogether and transition to a competitive bidding process, a move she said could be authorized by either Congress or the administration.

"The federal grazing fee is gamed to benefit the very few livestock operators who graze on public lands," at the expense of habitat for native butterflies, elk and sage grouse, she said.

Ranching groups have argued that raising fees would threaten the livelihood of the 22,000 ranchers who graze animals on public lands. Higher fees would come on top of an already costly and complex regulatory regime that often requires consultation and compliance with multiple federal agencies, they argue.

Moreover, ranchers say they pay less to graze on BLM lands because they are typically of lower quality than private lands.

But Dustin Van Liew, executive director of the Public Lands Council, a ranching advocacy group, and of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association federal lands program, said livestock producers support basing the fees on market factors. "This year's increase reflects the market factors working in the formula," he said.

In past years, the Obama administration has also requested that Congress authorize a new $1-per-AUM administrative fee to offset costs to administer the grazing program. Senate appropriators tentatively approved it last year, but Western Republicans have repeatedly squashed it.

The Obama administration is expected to include the fee proposal again in its fiscal 2016 budget request, which is being rolled out today.

 

[opyff]

I must admit, there is nothing worse than going into the back country and see an area that a domestic sheep herd has just annihilated. Especially since mutton isn't the most popular in the grocery store. Another thing that bugs me is that the area I live in is basically considered a kill zone for bighorn sheep seems how there are so many domestic sheep herds on private land. I would be a lot more sympathetic to cattle ranchers if I knew this had a positive effect on the price of beef at the grocery store but somehow I highly doubt it does.

 

[mikieb]

Where I hunt in Wyoming... I see the private land with grass over my knee... When I get to hiking on the National Forest and it's grazed right down to the dirt... and where there is grass, it's like a putting green length. I have hunted Wyoming for 20+ years and it has always been this way.

I see wilderness acres in Colorado that have grazing... West Elk Wilderness has grazing on it.

I am ok with cattle grazing... I just think it could be managed a little better and collect a few more dollars for it.

The only thing I see changing the grazing conditions on the Wyoming National Forest where I hunt will be the wolves eating the ranchers profits... driving the rancher off the National forest by eating their cows...

 

[mtmiller]

Dropped it down to $1.41 for 2018.

 

[Irrelevant]

So the economy is booming and we're going to charge less money? Must be one of those "fiscally Conservative" policies I keep hearing about.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Dropped it down to $1.41 for 2018.

What was the rationale behind the decision?

 

[JLS]

What was the rationale behind the decision?

Raises for the cowboys and better food for the dogs. And new pickups all the way around.

 

[Schaaf]

Costs me more to feed a damn 2” fish in my sons room than it does to graze a cow.

 

[Ben Lamb]

costs me more to feed a damn 2” fish in my sons room than it does to graze a cow.

quit buying the trader joes fish food!

 

[1_pointer]

What was the rationale behind the decision?

The formula for establishing grazing fees is set in law. As prices of the variables change so do the result.

§1905. Grazing fees; economic value of use of land; fair market value components; annual percentage change limitation

For the grazing years 1979 through 1985, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior shall charge the fee for domestic livestock grazing on the public rangelands which Congress finds represents the economic value of the use of the land to the user, and under which Congress finds fair market value for public grazing equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the Economic Research Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Price Paid Index) and divided by 100: Provided, That the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25 per centum of the previous year's fee.

(Pub. L. 95–514, §6(a), Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1806.)
Ex. Ord. No. 12548. Grazing Fees

Ex. Ord. No. 12548, Feb. 14, 1986, 51 F.R. 5985, provided:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic livestock on public rangelands, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer, to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year's fee, and provided further, that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this Order, the term:

(a) “Public rangelands” has the same meaning as in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95–514) [this chapter];

(b) “Forage Value Index” means the weighted average estimate of the annual rental charge per head per month for pasturing cattle on private rangelands in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service from the June Enumerative Survey) divided by $3.65 and multiplied by 100;

(c) “Beef Cattle Price Index” means the weighted average annual selling price for beef cattle (excluding calves) in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) for November through October (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service) divided by $22.04 per hundred weight and multiplied by 100; and

(d) “Prices Paid Index” means the following selected components from the Statistical Reporting Service's Annual National Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Goods and Services adjusted by the weights indicated in parentheses to reflect livestock production costs in the Western States: 1. Fuels and Energy (14.5); 2. Farm and Motor Supplies (12.0); 3. Autos and Trucks (4.5); 4. Tractors and Self-Propelled Machinery (4.5); 5. Other Machinery (12.0); 6. Building and Fencing Materials (14.5); 7. Interest (6.0); 8. Farm Wage Rates (14.0); 9. Farm Services (18.0).

Sec. 3. Any and all existing rules, practices, policies, and regulations relating to the administration of the formula for grazing fees in section 6(a) of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 [43 U.S.C. 1905] shall continue in full force and effect.

Sec. 4. This Order shall be effective immediately.

 

[antlerradar]

The decrease is likely dew to calf prices dropping from close to 2.50$ per pound a few year ago to less than 1.50 per pound last fall.

 

[Dinkshooter]

Maga!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks Tyler.

The decrease is likely dew to calf prices dropping from close to 2.50$ per pound a few year ago to less than 1.50 per pound last fall.

Makes sense. I bet it'll go lower as other countries turn to cheaper sources of beef, or at least sources of beef that don't have leaders insulting them on an ongoing basis.

 

[mtmiller]

Tyler link discussed calves.