Federal Grazing Reform and Avoidable Risk

Abstract

Recent rangeland reform attempts have increased ranchers' uncertainty of retaining grazing permits on federal land. This uncertainty is analyzed with a model of grazing on federal land. Ranchers facing this uncertainty will behave differently than if they were guaranteed the renewal of grazing permits at constant real grazing fees. It is shown that the socially optimal outcome may be achieved by adding avoidable risk through targeted rangeland reform. Rangeland reform attempts that create unavoidable risk can make both ranchers and environmental groups worse off. a divergence between the public and private interests. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the United States Forest Service (USFS), and the National Park Service (NPS) are responsible for managing the public lands with a multiple-use objective. Ranchers, environmental groups, and sports enthusiasts are all interested in controlling the public lands in the West. growing western population has aggravated this conflict. According to Arruda and Watson, The federal government faces a growing demand for uses of public lands (including grazing, minerals, recreation, water, and preservation) that outpaces supply (p. 422). Ranchers and miners utilize but do not own the public lands. To ranchers, grazing is a productive use of a natural resource. Environmental groups, such as the National Wildlife Federation, are concerned about damage caused by grazing. They assert that the cattle can damage wildlife and their habitat by over- grazing indigenous plants, defecating in streams, and spreading disease. They also argue that suppression of fire and introduction of exotic plants on overgrazed land threaten habitats (National Wildlife Federation). Other groups claim that overgrazing has destroyed cultural and historical artifacts. Sports enthusiasts contend that over- stocking prevents people from enjoying fishing, hunting, and hiking (Nelson). Another controversial aspect of public grazing is the level of grazing fees. Congress sets uniform grazing fees on public lands across all locations. These fees are about one- fourth as high as grazing fees on private lands. ranchers' perspective is that the low grazing fees are at least partially justified because the ranchers often maintain and improve the land (LaFrance and Watts). Lambert and Shonkwiler show that these