PrairieHunter
Well-known member
Its' mind-blowing how much money these people squander with something that should have value. 2 billion loss for taxpayers selling wood each year. Though some of you might find it interesting to see the #'s behind some of these projects and overall costs to the taxpayers.
In addition, such sales are costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The Forest Service has estimated that Big Thorne will cost taxpayers more than $13 million dollars – yet based on actual Tongass timber program costs versus timber logged during the past few years, Big Thorne alone could cost more than $102 million. In fact, tens of millions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars continue to flow into the Tongass every year, subsidizing the industrial-scale clear-cutting of our largest national forest.
A quick look at the Forest Service’s analysis of recent timber sales in Region One — which includes northern Idaho and Montana — shows the actual costs.
• The Forest Service estimates taxpayers will lose $1,127,000 on the commercial logging portion of the South Plateau timber sale next to Yellowstone National Park in the Custer Gallatin National Forest. When you add-in the remediation work before and after logging the Forest Service estimates that the South Plateau timber sale will lose $3,184,000!
• Taxpayers would also lose a stunning $4.2 million on the Gold Butterfly commercial logging project in the Bitterroot National Forest.
• The Lost Creek-Boulder Creek commercial logging project on Idaho’s Payette National Forest will lose nearly $22 million.
• The Forest Service estimated that the timber company that logged the East Deer Lodge commercial timber sale in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest received a $2.4 million federal taxpayer subsidy on this project alone.
• Nor is Region One the only place that the Forest Service loses money on commercial timber sales. A report by the Center for a Sustainable Economy found “taxpayer losses of nearly $2 billion a year associated with the federal logging program carried out on National Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands.”
Externalized costs
Adding to these losses are significant “externalized” costs to the public that the Forest Service does not count such as pre-commercial thinning of forests that will later be clearcut; fruitless attempts to keep sediment from newly bulldozed logging roads and clearcuts out of streams; and the equally futile attempt to stop new noxious weed infestations brought in on bulldozers, trucks, and other logging equipment.
Grazing is no better
Despite contributing only 2-3 % of all the beef consumed in the United States, commercial grazing is one of the most heavily subsidized activities on public lands. The program costs taxpayers a minimum of over a billion and half dollars every 10 years, and the minimal fee recoups just one-tenth of the cost of its administration. The cost to beef producers to feed their stock on public lands is substantially less than the cost to feed a pet hamster each month.
Key Findings
1. Receipts from grazing fees were $125 million less than federal appropriations in 2014. Total federal appropriations for the USFS and BLM grazing programs in fiscal year 2014 were $143.6 million, while grazing receipts were only $18.5 million. Appropriations for the BLM and USFS grazing programs have exceeded grazing receipts by at least $120 million annually since 2002. Had the federal government charged the average private forage market rate for non-irrigated lands in the western states, grazing receipts would have been on average $261 million, greatly exceeding annual appropriations.
2. The gap between federal grazing fees and private land fees has widened considerably. The federal grazing fee in 2014 was set at the legal minimum of $1.35/AUM, or animal unit month, which is the amount of forage to feed a cow and calf for one month. The annual federal grazing fee has been set at the minimum required by law since 2007. In 2013, the federal grazing fees of $1.35/AUM were just 6.72 percent of fees charged for nonirrigated private grazing lands in the West, which averaged $20.10 per AUM. The gap has widened considerably since 1981, when the federal fee was 23.79 percent of fees charged on private rangelands. The federal grazing fee is generally also considerably lower than fees charged on state-owned public lands.
3. The federal grazing subsidy is even larger when all costs to the taxpayer are accounted for. Indirect costs for livestock grazing include portions of different federal agencies budgets, such as the USDA Wildlife Services, which expends money to kill thousands of native carnivores each year that may threaten livestock; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which expends part of its budget for listing species as threatened or endangered resulting from harm by livestock grazing; and other federal land management agencies that expend money on wildfire suppression caused by invasive cheat grass that is facilitated by livestock grazing. The full cost of the federal grazing program is long overdue for a complete analysis.
For Immediate Release: February 1, 2023
Media Contacts:
Josh Osher, Western Watersheds Project (406) 830-3099; josh@westernwatersheds.org
Chandra Rosenthal, PEER (303) 898-0798, crosenthal@peer.org
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The federal lands grazing fee was announced yesterday and, for the fifth year in a row, has stayed at bargain-basement prices: $1.35 per cow/calf pair per month for all Bureau of Land Management and western U.S. Forest Service lands. For comparison, a 2019 congressional investigation found that leasing comparable livestock grazing on private ranchlands in the West came at a cost of $23.40 in 2017.
In addition, such sales are costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The Forest Service has estimated that Big Thorne will cost taxpayers more than $13 million dollars – yet based on actual Tongass timber program costs versus timber logged during the past few years, Big Thorne alone could cost more than $102 million. In fact, tens of millions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars continue to flow into the Tongass every year, subsidizing the industrial-scale clear-cutting of our largest national forest.
A quick look at the Forest Service’s analysis of recent timber sales in Region One — which includes northern Idaho and Montana — shows the actual costs.
• The Forest Service estimates taxpayers will lose $1,127,000 on the commercial logging portion of the South Plateau timber sale next to Yellowstone National Park in the Custer Gallatin National Forest. When you add-in the remediation work before and after logging the Forest Service estimates that the South Plateau timber sale will lose $3,184,000!
• Taxpayers would also lose a stunning $4.2 million on the Gold Butterfly commercial logging project in the Bitterroot National Forest.
• The Lost Creek-Boulder Creek commercial logging project on Idaho’s Payette National Forest will lose nearly $22 million.
• The Forest Service estimated that the timber company that logged the East Deer Lodge commercial timber sale in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest received a $2.4 million federal taxpayer subsidy on this project alone.
• Nor is Region One the only place that the Forest Service loses money on commercial timber sales. A report by the Center for a Sustainable Economy found “taxpayer losses of nearly $2 billion a year associated with the federal logging program carried out on National Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands.”
Externalized costs
Adding to these losses are significant “externalized” costs to the public that the Forest Service does not count such as pre-commercial thinning of forests that will later be clearcut; fruitless attempts to keep sediment from newly bulldozed logging roads and clearcuts out of streams; and the equally futile attempt to stop new noxious weed infestations brought in on bulldozers, trucks, and other logging equipment.
Grazing is no better
Despite contributing only 2-3 % of all the beef consumed in the United States, commercial grazing is one of the most heavily subsidized activities on public lands. The program costs taxpayers a minimum of over a billion and half dollars every 10 years, and the minimal fee recoups just one-tenth of the cost of its administration. The cost to beef producers to feed their stock on public lands is substantially less than the cost to feed a pet hamster each month.
Key Findings
1. Receipts from grazing fees were $125 million less than federal appropriations in 2014. Total federal appropriations for the USFS and BLM grazing programs in fiscal year 2014 were $143.6 million, while grazing receipts were only $18.5 million. Appropriations for the BLM and USFS grazing programs have exceeded grazing receipts by at least $120 million annually since 2002. Had the federal government charged the average private forage market rate for non-irrigated lands in the western states, grazing receipts would have been on average $261 million, greatly exceeding annual appropriations.
2. The gap between federal grazing fees and private land fees has widened considerably. The federal grazing fee in 2014 was set at the legal minimum of $1.35/AUM, or animal unit month, which is the amount of forage to feed a cow and calf for one month. The annual federal grazing fee has been set at the minimum required by law since 2007. In 2013, the federal grazing fees of $1.35/AUM were just 6.72 percent of fees charged for nonirrigated private grazing lands in the West, which averaged $20.10 per AUM. The gap has widened considerably since 1981, when the federal fee was 23.79 percent of fees charged on private rangelands. The federal grazing fee is generally also considerably lower than fees charged on state-owned public lands.
3. The federal grazing subsidy is even larger when all costs to the taxpayer are accounted for. Indirect costs for livestock grazing include portions of different federal agencies budgets, such as the USDA Wildlife Services, which expends money to kill thousands of native carnivores each year that may threaten livestock; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which expends part of its budget for listing species as threatened or endangered resulting from harm by livestock grazing; and other federal land management agencies that expend money on wildfire suppression caused by invasive cheat grass that is facilitated by livestock grazing. The full cost of the federal grazing program is long overdue for a complete analysis.
For Immediate Release: February 1, 2023
Media Contacts:
Josh Osher, Western Watersheds Project (406) 830-3099; josh@westernwatersheds.org
Chandra Rosenthal, PEER (303) 898-0798, crosenthal@peer.org
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The federal lands grazing fee was announced yesterday and, for the fifth year in a row, has stayed at bargain-basement prices: $1.35 per cow/calf pair per month for all Bureau of Land Management and western U.S. Forest Service lands. For comparison, a 2019 congressional investigation found that leasing comparable livestock grazing on private ranchlands in the West came at a cost of $23.40 in 2017.
