Western federal grazing lands, who will derive the most benefit - the federal government, the rancher or the green activist? That is a question that is not easy to answer in the context of economics.
Primarily the issues involved are not simple economic issues, but issues that involve an industry as much driven by the culture of the geographic region, in which it lies, as the economic boundaries in which it functions.The Western federal lands livestock industry is a unique business that has been thrown into the political arena in a battle where custom, culture and economic justification for an on-going business, which is mixed with various lifestyles, is at best one that is difficult to understand, let alone truly appreciate.
The rancher on federal land is sick and tired of constantly hearing what a bargain it is to run cattle on federal land for $1.86 per AUM (animal unit per month), while his cousin on private land pays in the vicinity of $8.50 per AUM. Can we set the record straight once and for all? Probably not, but here goes.
The rancher on federal land pays for 19 different operating costs. His country cousin on the private lease pays only four operating costs. The landlord of the private land pays $8 of that total fee while the private land rancher pays operating costs of $.50 per AUM, for a total cost of use of $8.50 per AUM.
The rancher on federal land pays the same $8 operating cost, but he also pays the $1.86 AUM grazing fee required by the Forest Service and the BLM for a total cost of use of $9.86 AUM. It doesn't require an MBA from Harvard to calculate cost of use, just an honest effort by someone who does not have an ax to grind.
The BLM has been moderately fair about AUMs for years. However, with the new green wave sweeping all things before it, and a new director, Jim Baca, who along with his boss, Bruce Babbitt, are both green activists, the future for the Western stockman on federal lands is bleak.
To many Americans, the 11 Western states represent recreation and awe-inspiring beauty whose enjoyment and benefit can easily be taken for granted. To others, particularly those native to these states, there is the same appreciation for the enjoyment offered by the recreation and the scenic grandeur of the country.
But to the native, there is much more. There is the recognition of a direct economic dependence upon this vast natural resource base in the form of generating income, supplying jobs and the native's ability to make a living.
All those who receive direct economic benefit from the Western lands through livestock grazing, mining and timber production, whether through ownership or employment, understand the necessity of wise and prudent management of all the resources.
Property rights, fairness, economic growth and wise stewardship are the key factors in managing the Western federal lands, not the "kick 'em out and lock it out" aberration that dominates the present administration.
To be forced to relinquish property rights in exchange for a system of transfer back to the federal government has far-reaching implications that will eventually bankrupt these United States as we know them.
Jim Faulkner
Bountiful