by Greta Anderson and Dr. John Carter, WWP

Those of us who care about public lands’ ranching tend to think about the ecological costs of livestock on the landscape: ruined streams, trampled and compacted soils, and degraded vegetation communities. Many of us care deeply about the impacts of cows on wildlife habitats and worry about the permanent damage that this powerful special interest group inflicts on our publicly-owned forests, deserts, and grasslands.

Thinking about these things in terms of the economics is just as frustrating. From grazing fees to fat cows, the balance is constantly tipping towards the side of the cowboys.

In 2008, the cost to graze a cow and her calf on public lands in the West was just $1.35 per pair, per month, an amount of forage known as an “AUM.” This year’s fee per AUM is as low as it can go under the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) and the Executive Order which extended its authority in 1994. It is well-known that the fee doesn’t even come close to covering the costs associated with the federal grazing program and even the government’s own estimates see red. However, the fee is set by a convoluted and unfair formula, and the agencies seem to be determined to give away “forage” to livestock producers in spite of the funding shortfall. Western Watersheds Project has already joined other conservation groups in asking for a revision in the formula itself, so far with no response from the agencies.

This year, we figured out exactly how little the fee costs. Since the AUM was based on a 1000 lb. cow, looking at the average cattle weight showed a significant discrepancy. Unlike cows of yesteryear when the AUM was determined, today’s cows weigh a whopping 1242 lbs, and increase of 23 percent. Calves are not counted and their forage consumption is significant. When both cow and calf are accounted for, the forage consumption value used by the Forest Service and BLM understates the actual current amount by over 40%. This means that carrying capacities based on traditional AUM calculations are insufficient to estimate the amount of forage each contemporary cow-calf pair is consuming. It also means that public lands ranchers are not paying for the full amount of vegetation that their fat cows (and sheep!) are eating.

We’re taking this discrepancy and fiscal irresponsibility forward to land managers across the West, challenging them to adjust their stocking rates to reflect the bigger livestock being put out on public lands. So far, every forest supervisor in 13 western states has received a detailed report advising them of the carrying capacity adjustments that need to be done.

It isn’t just the AUM whose value is out of balance with the times. The value of a dollar has decreased with inflation, the same inflation that affects everyone’s wallets. The $1.35 fee of 2008 is worth about $0.54 compared with 1980. Just to keep up with inflation, the fee today would have to be $5.94. Public lands ranching may be the only business in the country whose basic operating costs have gone down. And we’re not even counting the endless subsidies, grants, and programs designed to prop up this dying industry.

For those of us who care about the ecological effects, the fiscal value is just insult added to injury. But since most Americans know and care more about good economic sense, we’re hoping that we can expose more of the inequities in the federal lands program and really get people interested in the value of their public lands.

Greta Anderson is WWP’s Arizona Director.  She lives in Tucson.

Dr. John Carter is WWP’s Utah Director.

Check out WWP’s archive of our semi-annual publication, the Watersheds Messenger