This is the first of a three-part exploration of retiring permits for grazing on federal public lands. Part 1 examines the state of the public lands grazing industry and makes the case for the equitable end to abusive livestock grazing on public lands. Part 2 will review the history of congressional and other actions to facilitate retirement of federal grazing permits. Part 3 will speculate on the future of this conservation tool.
Figure 1. Fewer domestic livestock on public lands would mean fewer wolves killed to protect livestock. The forage now consumed by one cow and one calf could be allocated instead to feed either one bison, seven to eight deer, more than two elk, nearly eleven pronghorn, nearly seven bighorn sheep, or more than one moose—not to mention that it could serve as hiding cover for sage-grouse and a buffet for butterflies and other pollinators. Source: George Wuerthner.
Top Line: The option to voluntarily retire federal grazing permits is progressing, albeit in fits and starts.
The public lands conservation community has always been conflicted regarding the grazing of domestic livestock. Some conservationists hate it (especially on public lands), while others actually like it (at least compared to industrial feedlots).
Some conservationists see public land grazing permittees as allies in other public lands fights such as opposing fossil-fuel exploitation and off-road vehicles, while other conservationists see no prospect of the administrative reform of federal public land grazing and therefore don’t try.
Some conservationists advocate for the end of domestic livestock grazing on public lands, others for better (actually, it would be just a little less horrible) livestock grazing.
Some conservationists support subsidizing ranching in the hope of stopping subdivisions, while others have observed that when development pressures arrive, no amount of low- or no-fee grazing and low-or no-property taxes will keep a rancher from selling out.
Some conservationists see opposing such grazing as politically problematic in any effort to elevate the conservation status of certain public lands, while others of us have found it helpful to oppose livestock grazing while working for an area to attain wilderness or other conservation status—but only when opposition to grazing on public lands takes the form of facilitating the voluntary relinquishment of federal grazing permits so the forage can be reallocated from domestic livestock to native wildlife and watershed.
Figure 2. Bovines hammering the North Fork Big Lost River on the Challis National Forest, Idaho. Source: George Wuerthner.
Be that as it may, this three-part exploration starts with postulating that the conservation of public lands and its many values—including but not limited to air quality, water quantity and quality, natural carbon storage and sequestration, dark skies, native fish, native wildlife (including connectivity), and peace and quiet, along with other archeological, botanic, cultural, ecological, geological, historical, hydrological, natural, paleontological, scenic, scientific, watershed, wilderness, and recreation values—and the grazing of domestic livestock thereupon are incompatible. “Postulating” only because many people do not agree. However, the facts are indisputable. Of course, as we have recently learned again, beliefs need not be informed by facts and truth.
The political elegance of voluntary retirement of federal grazing permits is that the parties don’t have to agree on the environmental consequences of livestock grazing on public lands. They only have to agree that if livestock are eliminated from certain public lands, compensation to affected permittees and lessees should occur.
Four Indisputable Facts About Public Lands Livestock Grazing
The following four facts are indisputable, and they have nothing to do with the environmental consequences of private livestock on public lands.
Public lands livestock grazing is inconsequential to the nation’s beef supply.
Grazing on federal public lands contributes so little to feeding our nation’s cattle and sheep that were all such grazing discontinued, the market would quickly adjust to replace the very small loss in forage and feed supply that comes from Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands. Consider the numbers:
• 41 percent of all US lands are dedicated to pasture/range and the production of livestock feed; 31.6 percent of these lands are federal public lands (BLM and Forest Service).
• These federal public lands produce 1.3 percent of the US feed and forage supply for cattle and sheep.
• Only 2.2 percent of US farms/ranches graze their livestock on federal public lands for any part of the year.
• Plenty of private farmland exists to absorb the contribution to feeding the nation’s cattle and sheep that grazing on federal public lands currently makes.
Taxpayers heavily subsidize public lands grazing.
It costs more to feed a domestic house cat than to graze domestic livestock on federal public lands. The fee to graze a cow and a calf (or a steer) on Forest Service and BLM lands in 2023 is $1.35/AUM (animal unit month; the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and one calf for one month). Non-irrigated forage on nonfederal lands costs on average $21/AUM to $25/AUM (see Figure 3).
In 2005, the US Government Accountability Office found that the direct cost of grazing on federal lands was $281 million, for which they netted $6 million. If the BLM and the Forest Service had charged a fee to cover their direct costs, it would have been $12.25 and $19.65/AUM respectively. (All 2005 dollar figures are updated to today’s dollar amounts using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator.)
Figure 3. For comparison, the grazing fee on federal public lands for the same kind of forage is $1.35/AUM (in both 2005 and 2023 dollars). Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.
Federal grazing permits do not convey a right but give a privilege.
Federal grazing permits/leases do not convey grazing “rights” on federal public lands. Grazing permits issued by the BLM and the Forest Service give the permit/lease holder the privilege of using publicly owned forage on federal public lands. There is no such thing as a right to graze public lands. If the government chooses to discontinue giving this privilege, that does not constitute a constitutional “taking” that requires just compensation.
Federal grazing permits have market value.
Nonetheless, federal grazing permits and leases have a capital value to the holders of them. If you look online to buy a ranch, you’ll see there are many very large cattle ranches in the American West that give their acreage in the hundreds of thousands of acres. These figures include federal public land under grazing permit or lease. Down in the fine print you might see a reference to “fee” land, and the acreage will be in the four to five figures. This permit leveraging has financial value.
Banks will loan money using federal grazing permits as collateral. Due to the near certainty that the federal government will transfer grazing permits to a new base property owner, the real estate market recognizes the value of a federal grazing permit attached to a base property. The result is that base properties have increased in market value to reflect the federal AUMs that are attached to them. In the rare, but increasing, circumstance where the government does reduce grazing, it causes a loss of real money to the permittee—due not only to a loss of future subsidized grazing but also to a reduction in the fair market value of the base property. At tax time, the Internal Revenue Service recognizes permit value as part of the entire ranch value for estate or sale purposes.
Thus, it’s understandable that ranchers—not to mention the banks that hold the mortgages on the base properties—fight so hard to keep their AUMs up.
Figure 4. A bovine in the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area, New Mexico. Source: George Wuerthner.
Dark Clouds on the Public Land Grazing Horizon
Grazing on the public lands is not a sure thing anymore. These dark clouds are hovering over the future of federal public land grazing permittees and lessees:
• Beef continues lose market share to chicken, pork, seafood, cheese, vegetables, and plant-based alternatives. Concerns about human health and food safety (heart disease, obesity, E. coli, and mad cow disease among them) have affected and are affecting the beef industry. The ultimate landscape changer may be lab-grown meats.
• The average age of federal grazing permittees is rising. Many permittees have children who left the ranch decades ago and will not be coming back to take over.
• Conservationists are increasing their attention on livestock grazing.
• Conflicts between livestock and recreationists are increasing.
• Conflicts between livestock and wildlife are increasing. Wolves are coming back after having been almost eradicated for the benefit of livestock grazing. More endangered species listings are inevitable.
• Enforcement of water quality standards is increasingly likely.
• More litigation is probable.
• New planning and management processes by federal land management agencies could possibly reduce livestock grazing numbers and certainly place more restrictions on timing, location, and the like. The latter scheme requires increased federal spending, which may be problematic to secure.
The one bright spot for federal grazing permittees is that the federal grazing fee has continued to decline in real terms. At an inflation-proof ~$1.50/AUM, it is essentially free (though I must say that the current fee is likely illegal and therefore ripe for a court challenge).
Given the vagaries of the cattle business, operators would benefit from the flexibility to not exercise their public land grazing permits, or compensation for retiring their interests in them. This is not generally possible under existing law, which mandates “use it or lose it.”
If only there were another way.
The Voluntary Retirement Option
The federal government could just end livestock grazing on public lands, helping both the taxpayers and the environment. As livestock grazing on federal lands is a privilege, not a right, the feds wouldn’t have to pay anything. However, for various bureaucratic and political reasons, such will never happen.
It would be easier—and more just—for the federal government to fairly compensate permit holders as it reduces cattle numbers. Since the government spends substantially more than it receives for grazing, in a few years the savings realized by reducing livestock numbers could pay for the compensation. This need not be optional for permittees and lessees. However, for various bureaucratic and political reasons, such will never happen (except in the case where BLM land that has been grazed is transferred to the Department of Defense, as discussed in Part 2 of this series).
Or Congress, in which all authority over the nation’s public lands is vested by the Constitution, could establish a voluntary retirement option for federal grazing permits for all public lands. Federal law could be changed to allow permittees who currently hold federal grazing permits to waive them back to the federal government, which would then permanently retire the grazing allotments. Existing laws designed to protect the environment need not change. The administering agencies could still choose (or be ordered by a court) to reduce, eliminate, or further condition grazing to protect the environment or other public values.
How much interest will there be among livestock permittees? There is no reliable way to estimate. Factors will include the financial viability of ranching operations, the personal situations of permittees, the existing and anticipated level of conflict regarding grazing on an allotment, the price of beef, and so on. Anecdotal surveys suggest that about half of ranchers who have taken advantage of buyout offers have moved on to other things, and about half have purchased livestock operations not dependent on public land. The latter have stayed in ranching but as the masters of their own domains.
Figure 5. Livestock grazing in the Aqua Fria (“cold water”) National Monument, Arizona. Source: George Wuerthner.
Benefits of the Voluntary Retirement Option
Benefits of the voluntary retirement option could be many:
• Species, ecosystems, and watersheds would recover at maximum rates and in the most cost-effective manner.
• As permits were retired, the taxpayer cost of subsidizing the forage would be reduced proportionally.
• The Forest Service and the BLM could more easily meet the environmental protection standards set by state and federal law if livestock grazing were reduced, resulting in better stewardship.
• Controversy could be severely diminished. There would be less litigation, less need for funds to be spent mitigating livestock grazing damage, and less call to overturn environmental protection statutes.
• While not vesting a legal right to graze (something permittees have never had), allowing voluntary permit retirement would provide more options to livestock permittees. A permittee could choose to sell a federal permit but still live on and/or raise livestock on the home ranch.
• Very importantly, the choice to exercise the voluntary retirement option would rest solely with the permittee. If they didn’t want to retire, they would be free to continue to take their chances in a dynamic economic, regulatory, budgetary, and political environment.
Next, we examine the generally successful history of grazing permit retirements.
Figure 6. Bovines grazing the desert near the Eagletail Mountains in Arizona. Source: George Wuerthner.
For More Information
Kerr, Andy. October 1998. The Voluntary Retirement Option for Federal Public Land Grazing Permittees. Rangelands 20(5): 26–30. (pdf)
———. June 2015. Some Thoughts on Voluntary Federal Grazing Permit Relinquishment on Federal Public Lands. The Larch Company.
———. July 2016. The Constitutionality of Federal Public Lands. Public Lands Blog.
———. December 2016. A Federal Public Lands Grazing “Right”: No Such Animal. Public Lands Blog.
———. May 2017. The High Cost of Cheap Grazing. Public Lands Blog.
———. August 2021. Where’s the Beef? Public Lands Blog.
US Government Accountability Office. September 2005. Livestock Grazing: Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending on the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee Charged. Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO-05-869. (pdf)
USDA Soil Conservation Service. July 1988. Forage Utilization by Game Species. Technical Notes, Biology No. 37. (pdf)