VOLUNTARY GRAZING PERMIT BUYOUT ACT

This is by Laura Schneberger.


Bogus Buyouts and Transparent Tactics Not Supported by Real Ranchers

“Though environmentalists aren’t motivated by money, there are those who are”. Rangenet, a coalition of environmental extremists, patted themselves on the back for that one. Self-aggrandizing thinly veiled insults just wasn’t a good way to get positive attention from, much less the endorsement of federal lands ranchers for HB 3324 and HB 3337.

In an arrogant and condescending letter sent to New Mexico grazing organizations mid November 2001, the Center For Biological Diversity, members of Rangenet, an anti-rancher, environmental organization, insisted on meeting with ranchers in order to debate the merits of a federal buyout of grazing permits in the west.

Rangenet’s reasoning for the buyout legislation relates to a sad state of affairs that had arisen, due to the actions of their own members. Judicious use of junk science and the ability to file unlimited lawsuits at taxpayer expense has allowed the Center for Biological Diversity to make a name for itself as one of the most litigious groups in the nation. The group is responsible for the filing of over 85 lawsuits demanding the listing of a plethora of endangered species and then new suits designed to revoke grazing rights to protect those species. Only a fraction of those suits have been resolved. The staggering cost of those suits has been passed down to the taxpayer, meanwhile, federal agencies are backed up in lawsuits and unable to focus on land management while defending themselves from the CBD and other Rangenet members and using funding to shell out court costs. The CBD, along with many others, actually believes it’s own propaganda. Excerpts from the original CBD buyout letter included daisies like this one. “I do not need to remind you of the unfortunate conflict that has arisen between environmental protection groups, agencies and the public lands section of the ranching industry as a result of the necessity for endangered species protection.” “ We have done our best to develop a proposal that is fiscally sound (in terms of long term taxpayer savings on the grazing program), environmentally optimal as well as equitable and fair to permitees.” Ignoring the fact that the taxpayer is currently not only saddled with the bill for their legal actions, whether it be won lost or settled, but will also be saddled with the 60 billion dollars for the buyout. The Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups involved in Rangenet have not only created the problem but come up with the miraculous solution and in doing so have created a taxpayer subsidized industry all their own.

The fact is, permitee’s across the west own water and forage rights on federal land. If indeed a few people endorse the plan or actually end up selling their livestock permits to the government, IE taxpayer, what becomes of those forsaken rights and what kind of precedent is set. At a buyout cost of about 2000 dollars a head, the cost to taxpayers would be a staggering sixty billion dollars. Still the private rights associated with those lands aren’t even addressed, will the rancher be allowed to access them for use or sale in the future as they aren’t listed for purchase in the buyout.

Fixing What Isn’t Broken

Rangenet refers repeatedly to preserving our Natural heritage, “The reality is that no-one in the environmental community really wants to see ranchers lose their shirts because our precious natural heritage needs protection. Our focus is on protecting our natural heritage and not on ranching.” As one old rancher pointed out after reading those lines, our natural heritage will not be saved by removing businesses on federal lands for the sake of a few dubiously endangered creatures, it is just the opposite. Protecting our heritage, natural and national, means maintaining the ability to preserve life liberty and a pursuit of happiness and along with it, a passion for freedom.

While Rangenet publicly professes concern for the future of ranchers, privately their viewpoint is much different and many of their sattelite organizations are not as kind. "Grazing just doesn't belong in the Southwest. Yes, we are destroying a way of life that goes back 100 years. But it's a way of life that is one of the most destructive in our country. Ranching is one of the most nihilistic life styles this planet has ever seen. It should end. Good riddance."

Rancher Support?

Even though the majority of western ranchers adamantly did not and still do not support the buyout proposal, Rangenet was half right when they said, “Though environmentalists aren’t motivated by money, there are those who are”. It wasn’t hard to find a few motivated souls to lend them enough credibility to find congressional support to write the legislation. Finding a way to line pockets was the key to finding endorsers to the buyout scheme many of the current endorsers make more money in real estate than livestock sales and will benefit financially from the environmentally insane, subdivision of private commensurate property associated with the soon to be retired, allotments. Only a few of the supporters actually make a living ranching and those few have grown desperate over the years that the environmentalists stranglehold over the land management agencies has allowed their operations to deteriorate.

The Scheme

Realistically it is unlikely congress will ever appropriate funding for the buyout plan even if the legislation is passed. The law could very likely be passed and put in place and not one single dollar bill would ever make it into a ranchers hands.

Even though the sale of the permit is said to be voluntary, the legislation forces a permit waiver to the government prior to the retirement of the allotment. Normally ranchers voluntarily waive their permits in transfer procedures to another entity whether heirs or a new buyer. If you sell your ranch you must “waive” the permit back to the Secretary so that it can be transferred to the new buyer. If you die, your estate must “waive” it so it can be transferred to your heirs. Language in the buyout bill simply allows the agency to retire any waived permit voluntarily or not.

The Real Numbers

Rangenet chooses to recognize only 2% of beef as being raised on federal lands allowing them to come up with a 3.2 billion dollar buyout figure. Their numbers are simply not accurate.

There are about 6 million cows in 11 states in the west. Of those, at least 3 million are pastured on federal lands permits, a full 20% of our nations beef is raised in western states, 10% of that on federal lands. The private range is usually connected to the public range and one cannot exist without the other.

Looking at it another way, 50% of total beef produced in the western part of the country is produced on federal lands and is vital to the economic makeup of communities adjacent to federal lands. Beef production energizes the economy of the west from sales, by circulating dollars and contributing to local tax bases. In 1995, cash receipts from the marketing of cattle in 11 of the western states totaled $7.3 billion and beef prices weren’t top dollar back then. The claim that federal lands grazing costs the public more than it makes is simply not true. The loss of infrastructure associated with the loss of federal allotment access would cost the federal government or the taxpayer untold billions.

Who Really Pays?

Rangenet and their supporters have a totally unrealistic goal, they have absolutely failed to recognize that what they call small, marginal ranches, contribute tremendously to local communities. What they are asking ranchers to do is to abandon those communities in order to endorse a scheme that will likely serve to shoot themselves in the foot. The real costs to the taxpayer are the intense and prolonged lawsuits leveled against federal land management agencies. Suits meant to destroy production on these lands and in some cases even contribute to the destruction of the land itself. The unseen cost of the buyout scheme is the destruction of the local infrastructure that will happen in the wake of retired ranches. Rangenet truly believes waving a few phantom taxpayer greenbacks around will make up for all the harm caused in their wake of their actions.

First Obligation

The livestock industry has a plan of its own for legislation to fund the purchase of permitted interests, but only in the event that it is in the best interest of the local public to retire an allotment from grazing and only at the highest and best value of the ranch. So many people have been crushed under the heels of environmental tactics, yet nowhere in HB 3324 and HB 3337 is mention made of paying restitution for the damage already done to small ranchers. Until checks are cut for the ranchers that have suffered at their hands in the past, the industry will not listen anything they have to say. It takes good faith to earn trust and so far there is no evidence of that. Many of the groups that make up Rangenet are to this very minute, actively fighting ranchers who rely on forest allotments filing lawsuits and forcing people out of business every day. When sitting around the table discussing this proposal and crafting draft legislation did Rangenet worry and fret over the future of ranchers? Highly unlikely, what they did was to strategize on how best to destabilize the industry in the west. Dividing the industry on the buyout argument was a certain way to do just that. Those of us who succumb and endorse this scheme will merely sell out neighbors who do not. Those of us who wish to remain on our ranches will merely be subject to further instability in the form of litigation.

Hard choices in hard times but one thing that sustains us in this uncharted territory is our ability to see beyond our own noses and realize it is not in our best interest to sell out our children’s future to social engineering t HB 3324 and Representative Grijalva of Arizona introduced HB 3337actics of the environmental movement.

Here is the previously posted column by County Commissioner Crosby Allen.

Economics don't pan out for grazing buyout

In case you have not yet seen this bill, here is a little insight on HR 3324, the "Voluntary Grazing Buyout Act."

This act would cause the appropriation of your tax dollars, by the federal government, to buy grazing permits from ranchers. These grazing areas would then be placed in non-grazing status and would no longer be used for grazing of any livestock.

The appropriation would be for $100 million, which would take approximately 571,000 animal unit months (AUMs) of grazing off BLM and national forestland.

If one rancher in the western states has a permit for 300 cow/calf pairs, for four months of summer grazing, this would equate to about 1,200 AUMs. Using this example, this taxpayer-funded buyout would remove about 475 ranchers from the ranges in the western states in one year.

Without public land grazing, these ranches will not be able to support the same number of cattle that they can with the public land grazing. The ranches that sell their grazing permits will be forced to do the following: 1) cease cattle production; 2) drastically reduce the number of cattle they are currently running; or, 3) subdivide their privately owned ranchlands to replace the income lost from their annual cattle sales (unless they are already wealthy).

Here's what this means to you. You are going to pay the cost of your own community's economic funeral.

As an example, let's say we have a typical rancher who runs 300 head of mother cows. Using central Wyoming as the location for the operation, the rancher would run about four months on BLM-managed land. While the cattle were summering on the BLM, the rancher would be irrigating and haying his base property (privately owned) in preparation for keeping the cattle on the private property for the remaining eight months of the year.

At first the cattle would graze the pasture when they come home; then, when the pasture snows under or runs out, the hay would be fed to the animals until the next grazing season, when the cattle would be turned back out on the BLM managed land and the annual cycle would begin anew.

Now, let's say this same rancher takes the buyout and sells his BLM grazing permit. He would sell his 1,200 AUMs (300 pair x 4 months) for $175 per AUM, which would equal $210,000.

Most of this amount would most likely go to pay off his bills and maybe buy a new pickup, which would be a short-term injection into the local economy. However, the long-term effect will be devastating to the local economy.

You see, while the public ground under the BLM grazing permit supported 1200 AUMs, the base property (privately owned by the rancher) would have to support about 2400 AUMs which would require at least 100 head of mother cows be sold, as the remaining operation would not longer be able to support 300 pairs without the public grazing permit.

When the rancher was fully stocked at 300 pair, he would sell about 285 calves weighing 475 lbs each at a price of $425 totaling $121,125. Now that he has sold his grazing permit, he can only run about 200 pair (actually less than that, but for simplification of math we'll use 200). Now, after the buyout, he will sell about 190 calves at 475 lbs each at a price of $425 totaling $80,750. This is a difference of $40,375.

Now let's use University of Wyoming figures that estimate that one dollar will turn over in a community six times before it falls out of local circulation. When we multiply the $40,375 by six, we see that $242,250, approximately one-quarter of a million dollars, is lost from the local economy each and every year thereafter.

This example illustrates the negative economic impact to a local economy from just one rancher selling his grazing permit back to the government. The total effect from HR 3324, the "Voluntary Grazing Buyout Act," would be over $115 million that would come out of local western economies in just one year, and these economies would suffer this loss directly every year after that.

In other words, the feds will use $100 million (of your tax dollars) to cause your local western economies to suffer an approximate loss of $115 million this year and every year after.

If you know someone who works at a bank, sells gasoline or diesel, sells clothing, sells ranch and cattle supplies or equipment, works in or owns a restaurant or a grocery store, is or works for a veterinarian, drives a cattle truck or works at the livestock auction barn, then you know someone who is going to take a direct economic hit from this "buyout."

You, as a citizen making your living in one of the western states, your family and your friends, will suffer the indirect economic hit resulting from the lack of this economic activity occurring from the grazing of livestock on public lands.

This buyout is an agenda being driven by people who want all cattle off all public land. Guess what, Phase Two of their agenda is to drive all cattle off all private land.

I hope this sheds some light on this simple but critically important issue. If you feel it's important, maybe you ought to share your thoughts with your friends, neighbors, and elected officials. This example uses conservative, average numbers and is simplified for the purposes of illustration. An exact accounting and use of actual costs of production and actual market values would show the actual negative economic impact to local economies to significantly higher.

The previously posted comments by Doc Lane.

Buyout Language finally shows intent!

The Grazing Buyout that has been talked about and pushed by the Whitney family and the Center for Biological Diversity has now been introduced as two different bills in Congress. Representative Shays of Connecticut introduced HB 3324 and Representative Grijalva of Arizona introduced HB 3337. The language is slightly different in the two bills BUT the important impact of both bills is exactly the same.

In this article I would like to walk you through the impact if ether of the bills is passed. If you want to see the actual bill language you can get a copy on the Internet at http//:www.firstgov.gov/ web site. I will use Mr. Shays’ bill (HB 3324) as an example because it is the most comprehensive, but the provisions that will cause the problems cited here are in both bills.

First Problem – The selling point for supporting the “buyout” is it is completely voluntary. If you don’t want to participate you don’t have to.

Well in both bills you will be forced to lose your permit no matter what over time. The language is in Section 4

(a) (a) WAIVER OF EXISTING GRAZING PERMIT OR LEASE- A Permittee or lessee may waive to the Secretary (defined as Agriculture, Interior, Defense and Energy. In other words all grazing leases on all federal lands) at any time, a valid existing grazing permit or lease authorizing livestock grazing on Federal lands.

This sounds ok, except you MUST voluntarily waive you permit in order to transfer it to ANYONE. If you sell your ranch you must “waive” the permit back to the Secretary so that it can be transferred to the new buyer. If you die, your estate must “waive” it so it can be transferred to your heirs. IN OTHER WORDS ALL PERMITS ARE “WAIVED” IN THE COURSE OF NORMAL BUSINESS AT SOME POINT.

NOW THEY GOTCHA
Same Section 4

( b ) CANCELLATION OF WAIVED GRAZING PERMIT OR LEASE- The Secretary shall cancel grazing permits and leases waived under this section and permanently retire the associated allotments from domestic livestock grazing use notwithstanding any other provision of law.

Ok, now you sold the permit to the person who wanted to buy your ranch. You go to the local BLM or Forest Service office and “Waive” your permit back to the Secretary so it can be transferred to your buyer. SORRY, THE LAW STATES “ THE SECRETARY SHALL CANCEL …PERMITS WAIVED UNDER THIS SECTION AND PERMINATELY RETIRE THE ASSOCIATED ALLOTMENTS FROM DOMESTIC LIVESTOCK GRAZING.

I understand you are going to say it doesn’t apply to your allotment and permit because you didn’t “waive” it under Section 4 (a), you waived it to sell it to someone else. Where in 4 (a) does it say “only for voluntary permanent retirement of the allotment with compensation”? So as each permit is sold or passed on to heirs throughout the U. S. the grazing is removed PERMENTLY. The permits will have zero value because no one can ever own them but you and you won’t live forever. Very soon there will be no livestock grazing on federal land anywhere in the United States.

What happens in states like Arizona that have intermingled land throughout the state and almost all ranches depend in part on federal land as part of the ranch unit? Without the federal part they cannot ranch, it is not economically possible.

Second Problem

In Mr. Shays HB3324 the last of Section 4 acknowledge that funds to pay for the “voluntary buyout” may not be available.

Remember, appropriation of funds has to be done through Congress and NO one is guaranteeing this will be funded.

Ask yourself this question: Why would the Center for Biological Diversity want to, or Congress be willing to, pay you if this bill passes? Once the bill is signed into law, appropriating the money must be done, writing the regulations (which say “If you ever had a warning letter from the agency you don’t qualify”) and then starting to retire permits, NOT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO RETIRE THEM BUT BECAUSE THE LAW SAYS THEY HAVE TO!!! You can waive your permit but the law does NOT say the Government has to pay you!!

The previously posted comments of Sue Krentz.

1. If it is public land...and we have no title to it...THEN HOW CAN WE SELL...WHAT WE DO NOT OWN...Big secret...we do have title to the land..and the minute they offered us money...gave our rights VALUE..

2. If it is public lands..and the public is entitle to use it...then how can this group lock it up for ever ....I thought it was public lands...funny how the definition changes..

3. The money should not come from the tax payers..make the rich NGO'S PAY ..BUT I AM NOT FOR IT..

4. This is a destruction of small communities...

5. The fact that the buy out will affect the ranchers in the west..will have a devastating affect on the county, state and nation...

6. This will affect the low income and rancher workers as they will not understand that this means a loss of their jobs forever...so Mr. Grijlava is supporting the loss of jobs to his people.

7. this will drive the cost of living up..and punish low income, single mothers and minorities....

This is a destruction of the freedoms our country was founded on....

And the previously posted letter by Cynthia P. Coping.

Please oppose the Shays-Grijalva bill, HR 3324, which proposes to buy the ranchers off their federal permits. The bill has several flaws.

The first flaw is the bill attempts to impose socialism onto a capitalist nation. It does not stand alone, but is part of a a comprehensive effort by socialists such as Shays and Grijalva to remove capitalism from public land, remove people from rural land, to nationalize all privately held rural land, and to eventually transfer all means of production from private enterprise to government. The bill furthers the attempts by socialists in Congress to bring America economically to her knees and become increasingly dependent on imports and vulnerable to foreign economic conditions. It is a recipe for a stagnant economic base, more commonly known as socialism.

The second flaw in the bill is its fraudulent assumptions. Ranching is not by nature harmful to the environment; most of the harmful "overgrazing" historically occurred prior to 1925. Today, modern scientific studies have shown that well-managed grazing actually benefits the ecosystem and can even improve water tables. Please consult with range management experts from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. They have scientific data; the people behind Shays-Grijalva--Range Net and their tax-code abusing ilk-- have only deceit and demonizing rhetoric to support their arguments.

An additional flaw in the bill is that it bestows the lessee with new rights of ownership--to decide whether the lease will continue or not. This bill's illustrative analogy would be a bill to allow a home renter to decide whether a house should be demolished or not. This decision is not the right of the lessee but the owner. Our federal grazing land belongs to all Americans. If the lessee is ready to quit ranching, the lease should go up for bid. We should not grant a lessee an unprecedented right to sole control over the future of any parcel of federal land. What would he have done to earn it, other than cut a sweet deal for himself at the expense of every other American?

Please continue the capitalist system. No socialist nation ever enjoyed the benefits capitalism and God gave America. You cannot point to a single prosperous socialist nation. They are all poor.

I've posted the text to H.R. 3324, which you can view by going to my archives for 10/21/03.