Boise News

Actually, grazing buyouts are the free market at its finest. Keeping subsidized grazing in place, when it's a lose-lose situation for the budget and the environment, would seem to be socialism at its finest.

Kudos to Rep. Grijalva for supporting a plan that would put fish and wildlife first on our public lands. Grijalva is well-liked, knows the Washington scene, and would be a fantastic choice for DOI.

Voluntary grazing *permit* buy-outs (there's no such thing as a grazing "right" on public land) were supported by individual family ranchers in Arizona when Grijalva sponsored the legislation. They were opposed by livestock associations and their politicians. That's because livestock associations get their fees from ranchers, and politicians from those special interest groups - they don't get fees when ranchers voluntarily sell their permits back. That livestock associations have smeared the buy-outs is testimony to the associations' and politicians' self-interest - not the interest of the individual ranchers who no longer have the voluntary option.

The voluntary grazing buy-outs are a great illustration of Grijalva's deep knowledge of Western issues. That he would sponsor such legislation finding a way to promote the interest of the environment while also promoting the interest of individual ranchers - cutting out the special interest livestock associations who would rather hold ranchers in a hard place as pawns in their effort to keep control of western issues and landscapes - is testimony to his integrity and ability to come up with win-win solutions that solve problems and make everyone happy - except for the self-interested associations and their politicians. That the legislation didn't pass is indicative of the extent to which those interests held power, but it does not diminish the remarkable feat of finding such a solution that serves (almost) everyone involved given such a deeply controversial issue.

Raul Grijalva is a good man, a man that has held strong to his responsibility to advance the public interest. His record is impeccable when it comes to natural resource issues in the West and there is not a better candidate for Secretary of the Interior. I'll be crossing my fingers with Bill.

Many thanks, Bill. I was glad to see your take on Grijalva, and to get the benefit of others' comments here.

Ranchers pay dollars per animal for grazing rights and the federal lands are closely watched to prevent over grazing.
We have lived, hunted, worked and played in those places where both abundant wildlife and cattle have access to, so the belief of the cattle taking over is a bunch of hogwash put out by environmentalists. I am for multiple use. Yes it was abused at one time, but no longer is it and as for the land being locked up, "OUR LAND", NOT THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS LAND, NOT THE GOV'T, AS WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE EMPLOYERS AND THE GOVERNMENT IS THE SERVANTS, EVEN THE PRESIDENT....which many don't seem to realize. As a past Civil Service person for many years this I can tell you is FACT....
There would be no bail out of the big car companies if the environmentalists and Congress would allow oil drilling in a safe way plus gas, plus coal in a clean way we would not be where we are now. Our National Forests are burning up and the environementalists file suit not to allow the burn timber to be logged. Now the beetle has taken over and is killing whole live forests, nice huh. Think there should be some cleaning up, again jobs would be had if the timber industry hadn't been taken out by the environmentalists. We called them "90 day wonders" in our day as they knew nothing but what their PHD or Degree afforded them. They had very little hands on experience. Things were kept clean in our day. Now its blamed on global warming which is another lie, when the ice cores extracted in the antartica tells a different story. The earth runs in cycles and man is to blame for one tenth of one percent of the problem. Way back thousand years or so there wasn't cars etc. to cause the warming or the cooling.
I know I will be jumped on for this, but I have lived a long time, both in the cities entertaining VIPs and in the Woods, both Wilderness areas and otherwise, and have seen a lot plus I have Great Grandchildren and I lived in this great state of Montana as its my home, except when I was transferred to different states and to cities. I am not wet behind the ears in other words and have paid my dues.

Hey skinner and cindy,

The people voted....time for change!!

if you don't like it go crawl back under the rocks you came from!!

Marion,

Actually, public lands livestock ranching is a significant net loss for land managers - it takes a lot more money to administer livestock allotments on public lands then the grazing fees (valued woefully below market & even most state grazing fees) contribute to the land managers budgets. The number is between $128 - 500 million net loss to our public agencies annually - depending on how many of the externality costs that tax-payers pick up you figure into the accounting. These dollars go into predator abatement, exotic weed abatement, fencing, water-developments, road-blading that would otherwise not be necessary, monitoring, vegetation manipulations - including prolific landscape-scale seeding of non-native plants that do not support wildlife - big game or not, compliance with exiting regulation to ensure the minimal regard for public interest that exists, etc. All of these things would not be necessary except for the antiquated idea that it is appropriate to force livestock grazing on landscapes that would otherwise not sustain the activity without such manipulation of the environment.

Additionally, the fees that public land livestock grazers do pay do not supplement the general budget in such a way that would offset fees associated with recreational use - they are used exclusively for "range improvements" - most of which degrade the water sources, landscape and wildlife habitat. Ex: water developments, fencing, herbicide application etc. and as mentioned, the cost associated with such management is still a huge net loss on the budget - it doesn't pay for itself, all of us pay with tax dollars.

So the truth is, if we had back the $128 - $500 million net loss that we all pay in taxes which currently goes to administer the commercial production of livestock on public land for a few private politically connected individuals, and instead applied those dollars we contribute toward administration of recreation and other activities that all American's would be able to enjoy (we paid for it, right ?), we'd be more likely to avoid the financial pressure to pay for recreational access to public lands as now exists - not the other way around.

To bring it back to topic - this is another reason that Raul Grijalva is the responsible choice for DOI. Raul gets that the budgets at Interior are woefully contrived and way off balance. He has questioned the tax-dollar sink that are the irresponsibly below-market grazing fees - fees which are lower now than in several decades past. It's also why his sponsorship of win-win solutions that work for ranchers - at ranchers' discretion - allowing them to opt out of their permits also works for the environment and the budget - the voluntary buy-outs pay for themselves - over time - in recovered administration & avoided development costs. This is the kind of fiscal responsibility that we need at Interior - and last I checked, Obama promised to go budget by budget in his administration cutting away the wasteful expenditures - Grijalva's got a track record of doing just that.

And Marion, in response to your "cows or condos" argument - respectfully, this is a tired argument having little to do with the kind of understanding of economics. Livestock associations - and their politicians - have been extorting wasteful subsidies with this threat for a long time - it just doesn't pencil out.

The truth - as I understand it - is that many livestock ranchers on public lands that are in a financial pinch are in such a pinch because they've taken loans out on their assets to keep their operations going in times of sky high fuel prices, private feed prices, and other mounting economic pressures. Many of the loans are taken out on public land grazing permits (that loans are allowed to be taken against permits of public assets is irresponsible as well) and the banks that issue such loans do so in amounts set by stocking rates, incentivizing ranchers to keep as many cattle on the range as possible to secure payment on those loans. Public lands ranchers are between a rock and a hard place, the number of cattle they need to square with the banks is too many to meet environmental objectives demanded by regulators. The pressure mounts that they'll default - and be forced to sell their private property, and it's associated allotment to square the loan.

This is another reason why the mantra against voluntary buy-outs, stoked by large corporate livestock ranchers, their associations and their politicians, are such a betrayal of the small rancher. Voluntary buy-outs would afford individual ranchers the opportunity to get out from under such debt and actually hold their base/private properties to pass on to their kids - rather than selling out to developers, to larger ranchers (ex: Simplot) etc. Kids are splitting up and selling ranches quick - one contributing factor is the insurmountable debt - even if they wanted to hold on to the property, they don't have any other choice. Voluntary buy-outs give ranching families the option of paying down that debt and passing on a property that their kids might want to - might be able to - keep in the family. They at least give ranchers now the dignity of making it easier for their kids to make that choice.

Grijalva's a leader in crafting and promoting these opportunities, these solutions, amidst the political quagmire of the issues involved. Ranchers, environmentalists, and the public in general deserve that kind of leadership right now.

Sorry for the lengthy reply.
Still crossing my fingers.

Brian Ertz

Amazing early turkey, there, Brian.
The reason grazing permits are so expensive to administer is because of environmental litigation and opposition to permits. So you need a kajillion "ologists" to sign off on piles of paper in order to allow long-standing activities to take place.
That's part of why FORESTRY is also a nonstarter on public ground. Not because it lacks merit or is inherently unprofitable, but because the administrative overhead forced by dumb laws exploited by slightly smarter radical lawyers has rendered forestry a loser.
As for buyouts, I forgot to mention that Raul's buyout bill was to be funded by Uncle, not the enviro groups wanting to retire the leases. Yes, the same enviro groups that, if they had any pull, could easily raise the funds to buy the ranches and rights they desire. But why bother to do that when a gullible Uncle Congress will get Auntie Taxpayer to shell out?

Uh, Mr. Clark I believe the timber industry was kicked out because they were supposedly subsidized too heavily. Of course ranchers are tarred with the same brush. The fact is recreation was subsidized by the paying users. When the ranchers are gone, who is going to pay??????????????????

It would be poetic justice to see the cattle industry going the same way as the woods product industry.

Cindy, you really nailed it. The only thing I could add are the court awarded expenses that judges are so freely handing out are adding greatly to the drain on the economy of the United States of America. That money is used to file more lawsuits and gain more control of the people.
Jed, true poetic justice would be environmentalists freezing, and no power for their vehicles or computers....and of course starving because the eliminated the food producers and turned the land into their playgrounds. All of which they are trying hard to accomplish.

I am a environmentalist. I am opposed to this possible nomination for many reasons, but primarily because in this economy we need a greater pragmatist than Rep. Grijalva. Sorry, folks, but though we need protection of our lands and commitment to global climate change and commitment to developing new alternative energy resources we also need someone who will work with everyone and not be in peoples faces. I don't appreciate an oil man being in charge of Interior nor do I want someone on the other extreme. I would prefer an outdoorsman or woman who presents a credible land ethic. Cong. Grijalva is not a bridge builder. We must have bridges, just not to nowhere! Ever since I lived in Tucson he has impressed me primarily as one of the "good old boys."