Grazing Fees Research Articles

Evaluating Nonfee Grazing Permit Costs on Federal and Private Lands

Nonfee grazing costs on both federal and privately leased land have been a topic of research since the 1960s. A nonfee cost difference of $1.23 animal unit mo (AUM)−1, later adjusted to $1.35 AUM−1, was found between grazing on federal and privately leased land. This value became the base for the federal land forage value in the current federal grazing fee. In 1992, a task force group was formed to further research the value of federal forage and update the range for the federal grazing fee and recommended keeping the fee between $3 and $5, which would be $6.60 and $11.01 in 2018 US dollars. This study aims to update the 1992 nonfee costs of federal and privately leased grazing. Packets containing information on costs of grazing were gathered from randomly selected sheep and cattle producers in Wyoming, Idaho, and California for the yr 2018. The current study found an observed difference of $3.09 AUM−1 between public and privately leased grazing in the three states but found the overall costs to have no statistically significant difference. This research can be used in the future for observing the nonfee cost changes of federally and privately leased land in the western United States.

Livestock Use on Public Lands in the Western USA Exacerbates Climate Change: Implications for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Public lands of the USA can play an important role in addressing the climate crisis. About 85% of public lands in the western USA are grazed by domestic livestock, and they influence climate change in three profound ways: (1) they are significant sources of greenhouse gases through enteric fermentation and manure deposition; (2) they defoliate native plants, trample vegetation and soils, and accelerate the spread of exotic species resulting in a shift in landscape function from carbon sinks to sources of greenhouse gases; and (3) they exacerbate the effects of climate change on ecosystems by creating warmer and drier conditions. On public lands one cow-calf pair grazing for one month (an “animal unit month” or “AUM”) produces 875 kg CO2e through enteric fermentation and manure deposition with a social carbon cost of nearly $36 per AUM. Over 14 million AUMs of cattle graze public lands of the western USA each year resulting in greenhouse gas emissions of 12.4 Tg CO2e year−1. The social costs of carbon are > $500 million year−1 or approximately 26 times greater than annual grazing fees collected by managing federal agencies. These emissions and social costs do not include the likely greater ecosystems costs from grazing impacts and associated livestock management activities that reduce biodiversity, carbon stocks and rates of carbon sequestration. Cessation of grazing would decrease greenhouse gas emissions, improve soil and water resources, and would enhance/sustain native species biodiversity thus representing an important and cost-effective adaptive approach to climate change.

Economic valuation of rangelands in the north of Mexico: A study for its conservation

Aim of study: To estimate grazing fee and the economic value of the communal rangelands of two groups of ranchers.Area of study: Ejido Tanque de Arenas (ETA) and ejido Tanque de Dolores (ETD) in Catorce, San Luis Potosí, Mexico.Material and methods: The contingent valuation method with referendum format was used to propose a grazing fee that would allow conservation and continuity in the use of the common resource. The field information was collected by interviews and was processed in the PASW Statistics 22 software NLOGIT Version 5.0.Main results: Perception of rangeland deterioration, age, size of the herd, and level of income are characteristics of ranchers that influence the willingness to pay. From the coefficient of rangeland of the region (24.2 ha/AU) a monthly grazing fee of USD 7.18 per animal was calculated.Research highlights: Estimation and payment of grazing fees are an alternative to avoid the deterioration of communal rangelands, without incurring land parcelization.

US Sheep Industry and the Public Grazing Fee

Since the mid-1940s US sheep inventory has experienced dramatic declines, which has weakened the sheep industry significantly, making it increasingly important to analyze potential policy implications that could affect US sheep inventories in the future. Public grazing lands are often used in sheep production, especially within the western United States. The public grazing fee is, therefore, a cost within the production of sheep. A US sheep model applying capital stock inventory accounting methodology is developed to model both the supply and demand within the joint sheep and wool industries. The model is used to create a baseline projection for the next several years. Various public grazing fee policies are created to demonstrate the effects of the policies on the levels of sheep inventory and sheep and wool production within the country. Results indicate removing the public grazing fee (set at $0/animal unit month) may slow the rate of decline but would not be effective at reversing the declining trend. This suggests reducing the public grazing fee is not a viable policy option to help bring stability to the sheep and wool industries. However, projections indicate raising the grazing fee would have a substantial adverse effect on the industries. Consideration should be given to these results as grazing fee policy is adjusted moving forward.

Factors affecting farmers’ acceptance and perception of a potential incentive scheme in grassland areas

Incentive-based natural resource management can increase the ecological and economic efficiency of resource utilization. An incentive-based fee scheme was proposed as an effective management scheme for grasslands in northwestern China, where grazing has been banned for ten years. The scheme combines grazing fees and payment by results (GFPBR). The aims of this case study were to assess farmers’ acceptance and perception of a potential GFPBR scheme, using Yanchi County as an example, and to evaluate the driving factors. Face-to-face surveys were conducted with 128 farmers. A semi-standardized questionnaire, which included farmers’ willingness to accept the GFPBR scheme, their perception and preferred characteristics, individual characteristics, family characteristics and behavioral characteristics, was developed. The results showed that the majority of farmers in this case study accepted the GFPBR scheme. The willingness of farmers to pay a fee for grazing was significantly influenced by the proportion of stockbreeding income to total income, whether grassland was independently contracted, whether non-agricultural investments were made in the past five years, and farmers’ perception of ecological protection and economic development. Climate change and government executive capacity were the main risk factors considered by farmers who were unwilling to enroll in the GFPBR scheme. The farmer’s perception of grassland management indicated they were more inclined to value short-term economic interest over ecological protection. We suggest that the implementation of the GFPBR scheme must take into account the grazing fee amount, the design of the scheme, the length of implementation, and property ownership.

Does Size Matter? Animal Units and Animal Unit Months

The concepts of animal units, animal unit months, and animal unit equivalents have long been used as standards for range management planning, estimating stocking rates, reporting actual use, assessing grazing fees, ranch appraisal, and other purposes. Increasing size of cattle on rangelands has led some to suggest that the definition of animal units and animal unit months requires revision. Range managers need to understand these concepts and arbitrarily changing them would lead to confusion. The Rangeland Assessment and Monitoring Committee reviewed this issue and concluded that the existing definitions are adequate to accommodate increasing size of cattle.

Unheard Voices of Van Gujjar Women': A Thematic Analysis of Coping Patterns by Women in the Context of Sedentarization among Himalayan Pastoralists

The Van Gujjars families migrating to the Alpine pastures today face the same fate of being the ‘victims of conservation'. It started in the forest of foothills at the beginning of the 1990s with Rajaji National Park, but during the last decade most of the summer pastureland in the upper ranges has also been converted into national parks, global heritage sites or sanctuaries. Apart from National parks, Van Gujjars elsewhere had the right to graze their animals in parts of the forest against a fixed grazing fee. But now some forests are being closed by the implementation of Joint Forest Management Programmes. This Paper is based on a mixed research in which the quantitative aspect aimed at identifying the factors and levels of women empowerment before and after sedentarization through a Women empowerment Index. Qualitative research aimed to explore perspectives of young women from Gujjar community in terms of patterns of coping in their sedentarized life. Narratives of women presented a sense of collectivism and identification with issues and concerns of other Gujjars in terms of an identity of victimhood and a sense of being marginalized and socially excluded. Following patterns of coping emerged from narratives: Use of existing resources, Women as Livestock owners and managers, Women as Leaders in Migration, Work Participation and status of women, Women as Builders of Asset base, Gujjar women- the Natural resource managers, Coping through normalizing and acceptance, Coping in social matters and Assurance for moneylenders.

Grazing institutions in Castilla-La Mancha, dynamic or downward trend in the Spanish cereal–sheep system

In most parts of the world, pastoral societies are governed by internal rules or legal bodies and legal rules (institutions) at the regional and national scale. In the Large Scale Grazing Systems (LSGS) of the European Union (EU), institutional management is also dependent on EU regulations, which underpin a considerable part of total policy support. In this research we argue that the effectiveness of policy intervention should be determined “on the ground” and taking into account the structural and social features of particular LSGS. Under a community-based research approach, the main stakeholders (arable farmers and landless pastoralists) and organisations governing the cereal–sheep farming system in Castilla-La Mancha (South-Central Spain) were consulted with the aim of assessing the sustainability of the mixed cereal and sheep system. In this area, sheep farming is a secondary land use relying on the agricultural residues from arable farming, but representing some 35% of the total value of production farming per land unit. Our results showed that regional and EU regulations are uncoordinated and uncongenial for the continuity of the mixed cereal and sheep operation. They are supported by separate policy schemes, while operating on the same land units. Arable farming is more affected by EU regulations and corresponding policy support schemes, while sheep farming is more regulated by regional institutions. EU support was 32% and 13% of total farm income for cereal and sheep farmers, respectively. Arable farmers received a regulated non-market grazing fee. They abide by the law, but have no incentive to facilitate the sheep subsystem. The farming practices of sheep farmers are more market-driven as the value of production makes up the bulk of their total income. However, they are squeezed by strict regional regulations when implementing pastoral surviving strategies (mobility, accessibility, and diversity of land based resources). Both subsystems are following disconnected trends, with increasing cultivation intensity in arable farming and the abandonment of shepherding and a consequent consolidation of sheep flocks and an increase in indoor feeding. This research suggests that sensible institutional management should be derived from a proper knowledge of the social and structural features of particular grazing systems and the disentangling of their main constraints.

An Evaluation of the Federal Grazing Fee Formula

The federal grazing fee is currently set using the Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA) fee formula established in 1978 and modified in 1986. The formula is adjusted annually using indices of private land grazing lease rates (Forage Value Index, FVI), prices received for beef cattle (Beef Cattle Price Index, BCPI), and costs of beef production (Prices Paid Index, PPI). The FVI tracks price movement in the private forage market and was the only index originally proposed to be included in the fee formula. Public land ranchers and the Interdepartmental Grazing Fee Technical Committee assigned to study grazing fee alternatives in the 1960s questioned the ability of the FVI to account for short-term demand, supply, and price equilibrium, and, for this reason, the BCPI and PPI were added to the fee formula. Nearly 40 years of data are now available to evaluate whether adding the BCPI and PPI did, in fact, help explain short-term market fluctuations. Analysis shows that if tracking the private forage market is the primary objective, the fee formula should have included only the FVI. Including the BCPI and the PPI has caused calculated grazing fees to fall further and further behind private land lease rates. Had the $1.23 base fee in the PRIA formula been indexed by only the FVI, the federal grazing fee would have been $4.36 AUM-1 instead of $1.43 AUM-1 in 2002. It is time to consider the feasibility of a competitive bid system for public lands, or, at the very least, drop the BCPI and PPI indices and adopt a new fee formula that generates more equitable grazing fees. DOI:10.2458/azu_jrm_v56i6_torell

An evaluation of the federal grazing fee formula

The federal grazing fee is currently set using the Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA) fee formula established in 1978 and modified in 1986. The formula is adjusted annually using indices of private land grazing lease rates (Forage Value Index, FVI), prices received for beef cattle (Beef Cattle Price Index, BCPI), and costs of beef production (Prices Paid Index, PPI). The FVI tracks price movement in the private forage market and was the only index originally proposed to be included in the fee formula. Public land ranchers and the Interdepartmental Grazing Fee Technical Committee assigned to study grazing fee alternatives in the 1960s questioned the ability of the FVI to account for short-term demand, supply, and price equilibrium, and, for this reason, the BCPI and PPI were added to the fee formula. Nearly 40 years of data are now available to evaluate whether adding the BCPI and PPI did, in fact, help explain short-term market fluctuations. Analysis shows that if tracking the private forage market is the primary objective, the fee formula should have included only the FVI. Including the BCPI and the PPI has caused calculated grazing fees to fall further and further behind private land lease rates. Had the 1.23 base fee in the PRIA formula been indexed by only the FVI, the federal grazing fee would have been 4.36 AUM-1 instead of 1.43 AUM-1 in 2002. It is time to consider the feasibility of a competitive bid system for public lands, or, at the very least, drop the BCPI and PPI indices and adopt a new fee formula that generates more equitable grazing fees.

WESTERN RANGELANDS REFORM: AN ANALYSIS OF THE 1996 SENATE VOTE ON FEDERAL GRAZING FEES

Grazing of livestock on public lands is a controversial environmental issue, despite a long history of federal regulation of this activity. Environmentalists and economists have argued that grazing fees charged by the Bureau of Land Management subsidize livestock operators and that higher fees would help bring rangeland usage in line with environmental and economic goals. In 1996, the U.S. Senate voted to determine whether higher fees would be charged for use of federally owned land. Based on a theoretical model, probit regressions are used to analyze this vote with respect to the influences of the general electorate, special interests, party affiliation, senatorial preferences, and electoral security. We find that political competition among producers utilizing federal lands was a crucial factor in determining voting decisions. However, environmental interests had a smaller direct impact on the grazing fee vote.

Sheep thrive on weedy alfalfa

A 28-day iamb grazing trial during the winters of 1994 and 1995 compared lamb gains on seedling alfalfa with differing mixes of weeds and aifalfa. Commercial crossbred wethers grazed experimental paddocks that were completely weed infested, as pure as possible alfalfa stand, 1/3 weed infested and 2/3 weed infested. Lambs had the same weight gain whether in paddocks that were pure alfalfa or in weed-infested alfalfa. Weed-infested paddocks were able to sustain more lamb grazing days than weed-free paddocks. The weed- infested paddocks produced more total pounds of lamb gain per acre of land than the weed-free paddocks. Using lambs to control weeds in seedling alfalfa would reduce herbicide use and would enable growers to market weeds as part of lamb grazing fees.

Impacts of Livestock Grazing Activities on Stream Insect Communities and the Riverine Environment

This stern advisory to federal land managers was Aldo Leopold's response to years of rapidly degrading riparian habitat caused by livestock grazing in the southwestern United States. It was followed not by long-lasting grazing reform, but by decades of expansion of cattle production in riparian habitats from the desert southwest to all points north and east. Today in the western United States, livestock (principally cattle) are grazed on approximately 70% of the landscape, much of which is public (F1eischner 1994). Recent evidence of drinking water contamination, imprudent grazing fee structures, and loss of wildlife habitat has led concerned citizens and scientists to encourage policy makers to restrict grazing, particularly in habitats vulnerable to irreparable damage (Sherer et aI. 1992; Wissmar et al. 1994; Armour et al. 1991, 1994; F1eischner 1994). Range managers and ecologists generally agree that many currently grazed habitats (e.g., alpine meadows [Kondolf 1993], sagebrush steppe [Tait et al. 1994]) cannot sustain conflicting societal demands for inexpensive beef and high-quality water (Minshall et al. 1989, Mosely et al. 1993, Fleischner 1994). However, despite strong public and scientific will to limit the types of public habitat available for pasturing livestock, grazing contracts continually are awarded with little recognition of differing habitat sensitivities, even though restoration costs often far outweigh income from grazing fees (Minshall et al. 1989, Armour et al. 1994, Kondolf 1993). Here, we review the evidence of livestock production impacts on riverine ecosystems. Emphasis is placed on examinations of direct responses of aquatic insects to the activities of cattle (e.g., respiratory stress due to coating of gill structures), and on studies that illustrate the potential of grazing in riparian areas that indirectly affect aquatic insects through habitat alteration (Fig. 1).

Comparison of Forage Value on Private and Public Grazing Leases

Federal land grazing fees have been set by a formula that uses a base rate developed from a 1966 study comparing total grazing costs on private and public lands. A similar market comparison was recently conducted in Idaho, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Total grazing costs were adhered through personal interviews from 258 ranchers using 245 public grazing permits and 149 private leases. Public land grazing permit values were also estimated in each state. This study demonstrated that many public land ranchers have been willing to pay more for grazing than the apparent value implied from the private forage market. With the 1992 grazing fee of $1.92/animal unit month (AUM), 34% of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) cattle producers, 62% of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) cattle producers, 60% of BLM sheep producers and 92% of USFS sheep producers paid more for grazing public lands than did those grazing privately leased lands. Estimated forage values averaged $3.63/AUM for cattle grazing BLM land, and were negative for cattle using USFS lands and for sheep using both BLM and USFS allotments. Using a 3.35% interest rate to amortize permit value, the annual value of public land forage was estimated to be from $3 to $5/AUM. Doubts were cast about the standard assumptions that ranchers have profit maximization as their primary goal, that permit value measures only excess forage value, and that sufficient private leases are available for a valid comparison between private and public forage markets.

The Economic Impacts of Increased Grazing Fees on Gila National Forest Grazing Permittees

The purpose of this research was to estimate the impacts of increased federal grazing fees on current holders of grazing permits on the Gila National Forest (GNF) in western New Mexico. A multi-period linear programming (LP) model was developed using 1992 national forest ranch budgets as baseline data. Discounted net returns (returns over variable costs) were maximized over a 60-year planning horizon under current fee regulations, and with alternative fees computed for various recent legislative and administrative grazing fee proposals. Small, medium, and large ranches were considered in the impact assessment. In addition to livestock income and expenses, off-ranch income, family living expenses, and debt obligations were directly considered in the analysis. An estimated 7% of the current Gila National Forest grazing permit holders--those medium and large ranches with high debt--would be expected to go out of business even if the current grazing fee were continued. At a federal grazing fee of $3.96/AUM as proposed by Rangeland Reform '94, an additional 20% of GNF permittees would be expected to go out of business. These would be the small high-debt ranches and large ranches with intermediate levels of debt. A grazing fee of $8.70/AUM would be expected to cause all current GNF ranchers with debt to go out of business. Average annual USFS grazing use by existing permit holders was estimated to decrease by about 120,000 AUMs when the grazing fee was increased to $3.96/AUM, but grazing fee receipts would increase by 31% with the higher fee, assuming no new permit holders or consolidations occurred. The largest grazing fee receipts were generated at the $3.96/AUM fee.

Demand for Grazing on Public Lands: A Disequilibrium Approach

A demand function for grazing on western public rangelands is estimated. Since the federal government sets the grazing fee and rations the quantity of Animal Unit Months (AUMs), a disequilibrium market model is developed. The estimate of own-price elasticity of demand (-0.178) suggests a 0.82 percent revenue gain for a 1 percent fee increase. Results show that most western states experienced excess supply of AUMs since the mid-1980s, suggesting a relatively high fee. The levels of demand and effective supply vary substantially across states; this implies that state- or region-specific factors should be incorporated in setting the grazing fee.

Public Land Policy and the Market Value of New Mexico Ranches, 1979-94

Proposals outlined in Rangeland Reform '94 have been perceived to greatly alter grazing use on public lands. In addition to new rules and regulations, the grazing fee would double under this reform proposal. The debate about these controversial policies would be expected to affect the market value of public kind grazing permits. Regression models were developed using over 700 ranch sales to determine recent trends in market value for New Mexico ranches, including public land ranches. After 1988, nominal deeded ranch values were found to have increased by 3% per annum, but remained unchanged in 1992 constant dollars. This follows a 50% decline in real value from 1982-88. Ranches heavily dependent on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land for grazing capacity decreased in real value by about 1.8% per annum over the 1988-94 study period. The United States Forest Service (USFS) has recently had the most controversial land use polices and the highest average total grazing costs. This has been reflected in the market value of USFS ranches, with a continued decrease in permit value; USFS ranches in New Mexico have lost 75% of their real value since 1982. Doubling grazing fees on New Mexico state trust lands contributed to a downward trend in leasehold value. Somewhat surprising, given the higher grazing fee on state trust lands, these permits increased in market value in both real (1.7% per year) and nominal (5% per year) terms after controversy about state lands subsided and federal land policies became more controversial.

Public Land: How Much Is Enough

Public Land: How Much Is Enough

Public Grazing in the West and “Rangeland Reform '94”

AbstractPrivate grazing fees differ substantially and systematically across states in the West. In contrast, federal policy establishes the same grazing fee on federal lands, regardless of location. We analyze locational differences in private grazing fees with an econometric model. Differences in private grazing fees across states can be explained largely by economic forces consistent with a competitive spatial market. A uniform increase in the federal grazing fee will lead to a large variation in economic effects between states and across individual public lands ranchers. We propose the permanent transfer of public grazing rights to the private sector.

Family Ranching and Farming: A Consensus Management Model to Improve Family Functioning and Decrease Work Stress

Few businesses have as much family involvement in day-to-day operation as intergenerational ranching and farming. Working side by side, family members have opportunities for shared dreams, satisfying communication, and intimacy. At same time, working side by side presents challenges of high intrafamilial stress, strain, and conflict, especially when family lacks skills in communication, problem solving, goal setting, conflict resolution, and strategic planning. The internal stress ranch families experience as a result of working together has contributed to a decline in number of families staying together on ranch (Rosenblatt, deMik, Anderson, & Johnson, 1985; Ward, 1987; Wilson, Marotz-Baden, & Holloway, 1991). Family ranching is a business under siege. Since 1989, ranchers have come under increasing scrutiny by U.S. House of Representatives, which has included raising grazing fees on public lands four times in appropriation bills (Grazing fees, 1993). Recent U.S. Senate debate and public hearings in western states regarding whether to double or triple per-unit grazing fees have focused attention on ranchers and their use of public lands (Grazing reform, 1993). Recent national television coverage by both Audubon Society and CBS has publicized question of whether ranchers' use of public lands is in best public interest, given growing environmental concerns. CBS characterized problem as the new range wars (Rather, 1993). These external threats could soon squeeze a number of ranch families out of business (Lewis, Volk, & Duncan, 1989). The purpose of this pilot study was to test hypothesis that ranch family members who communicate openly with one another to establish a shared vision and strategic plan can increase positive family functioning and decrease work stress. As a united system, perhaps family members can more effectively fend off internal and external threats to family ranching business. Rural ranch families who both want to face external threats that contribute to their reported feelings of being under siege and to take appropriate proactive steps to transfer labor, management, and land amicably to next generation face a double problem. First, it is difficult for families to work together day after day without either encountering high levels of stress and strain or denying personal needs and wants (Freudenberger, Freedheim, & Kurtz, 1989; Jurich & Russell, 1987; Marotz-Baden, 1988; Rosenblatt & Albert, 1990; Wilson et al., 1991). Second, family life educators and Cooperative Extension specialists may lack experience working collaboratively with marriage and family therapists one-on-one with rural families to help families rebuild trust and cohesion. This article brings together therapy and education and creates a rural family Consensus Management Model that increases positive family functioning and capitalizes on ranch families' natural inclination toward self-sufficiency. It also enables them to create a structure and a process for successful and amiable labor, management, and land transfer across generations. Not all families are likely to be good candidates for intervention. Families that are likely to benefit most from Consensus Management Model are similar to those that would benefit most from traditional therapy (Fisch, Weakland, & Segal, 1982), that is, those that are hurting, have insight that their coping strategies are inadequate, or are in crisis from high stress of interpersonal communication problems and fear of losing their ranch or farm as a result. These families tend to be more willing to invest time and resources into some form of therapy or consulting. They tend to realize urgency of seeking new alternatives to family and business problem solving. They recognize that continuing use their old coping strategies to solve problems is inadequate to prevent depressive feelings, worry, tension, stress, angry outbursts, fighting, and possible loss of family farm or ranch. …