The Welfare Cattle Empire That Controls Your Public Lands: article

[307]

Sounds like some pretty lousy grazing land...

Yeah, it is. That’s why it leases cheap. You need a lot of desert to feed a cow.

 

[MtnW]

Yeah, it is. That’s why it leases cheap. You need a lot of desert to feed a cow.

You have missed the point. It’s a major scam. The system pays out more to these corrupt billionaires than it takes in. This affords these billionaires 10’s if not 100’s of millions of tax write offs

 

[Baddog]

If you want to convince me the government shouldn’t be subsidizing anyone, I’m probably an easy sell. However if we are gunna subsidize damn near everything in this country food should probably be on the list.
I often hear this argument how getting rid of cows would make wildlife flourish but I don’t buy it. Most of these cow leases on public are on summer range and deer and elk aren’t starving to death on the summer ranges. You could pull all of the cows off public land and in 10 years time there’s no more deer or elk and in spots there’s going to be less because the ranchers have developed water sources and maintain that infrastructure and it would disappear.

 

[fragment]

This is why it is public land, in general, and wasn't sold. Hal Herring, while I don't a ton about the guy, showed up on The Prairie Farm podcast and spoke to some history of the Taylor Grazing Act and it seems like most of the patchwork of the western lands are simply because it IS terrible grazing land. Since you couldn't make a living on it, it was never homesteaded by any of the homestead acts, and was slowly taken over as cheap lease land by adjoining landowners. He seems like he's spent a lot of time and seems knowledgeable about the topic.

He's apparently got a book coming out soon that goes into detail on the history of the homestead acts and the grazing acts that created this mess. I will be reading it.

 

[MtnW]

All for the family ranches and grazing leases as long as they do not monetize the public’s wildlife.
This is more about the mega ranches controlled by billionaires for massive tax write offs and subsidies while bastardizing our public lands, monetizing our wildlife, and using these vast amounts of public lands for their own private hunting/fishing estates locking out the public from their own land

 

[MTBackroads]

All for the family ranches and grazing leases as long as they do not monetize the public’s wildlife.
This is more about the mega ranches controlled by billionaires for massive tax write offs and subsidies while bastardizing our public lands, monetizing our wildlife, and using these vast amounts of public lands for their own private hunting/fishing estates locking out the public from their own land

Sounds like the RMEF and the APR.

 

[StupidLightweight]

Fascinating article…

 

[Boarmaster]

In today's world of competing agendas and activist journalism I would need to read many more articles to form an opinion. Its clear most if not all gov programs are in need of better oversight and no doubt need some modification. I’m not well versed on the subject. I would like to know if much of this BLM land was at one time private and then purchased by the public and if so what if the ancestors or assignors of these ranches and ranchers were promised as to their continued use of the lands for livestock. Being from the east I have very little knowledge of how things work out west.

 

[Poser]

In my (non professional) opinion and experience, if we are going to address grazing issues, let’s start with sheep, figure that out, and then we can talk about cattle.

 

[Poser]

No idea on the actual outcome. Not even sure how much of a strong opinion on this I can form because there are a lot of positions to consider. That being said, I ran the question through a AI model asking what would the outcome of the sudden elimination of public lands cattle grazing be out of curiosity. Response is below. Its interesting that the question seems to raise a similar outcome as closing military bases and the consideration for private businesses who are dependent upon them.

------

If the United States completely halted cattle grazing on public lands—primarily managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)—the impact on the price of beef would be surprisingly minimal at the national grocery store level, but severe for specific regional economies and individual operations in the American West.

The economic reality breaks down into a clear contrast between national macro-supply and localized ranching operations:

1. National Beef Prices: A Negligible Ripple​

At a nationwide level, a ban on public land grazing would cause barely a blip in retail beef prices.

• The Supply Percentage: Public lands contribute a very small fraction to the overall U.S. beef supply. Most estimates from agricultural economists and federal data indicate that cattle grazed on public lands account for only 2% to 3% of the nation’s total beef production, and supply less than 3% of total livestock forage nationwide.
• The Geography of Production: The vast majority of U.S. cattle are born, raised, and fed on expansive private rangelands and pastures in the Midwest, the Southern Plains (like Texas and Oklahoma), and the Southeast, where high-quality forage is much denser than in the arid West.

Because the national market could easily absorb or offset a 2% drop in supply through minor shifts in private production or international trade, the average consumer at the supermarket would likely see no noticeable price increase.

2. Regional and Local Impact: A Severe Shock​

While the national market wouldn't flinch, the story is entirely different for the Intermountain West (states like Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, and Nevada). In these regions, a public land ban would fundamentally reshape the ranching landscape.

• The Seasonal Chain Link: Many western ranches operate on a tightly balanced seasonal cycle. They use their private, irrigated valley bottoms to grow hay during the summer, while turning their cattle out onto federal mountain or desert allotments to graze. In the winter, they bring the cattle back to the home ranch to feed on the stored hay.
• The Forage Crunch: If federal permits were eliminated, these operations would lose their summer feed. Ranchers would be forced to choose between buying expensive private forage, leasing private land (which is highly competitive and often unavailable), or drastically downsizing their herds.
• Consolidation and Land Use Changes: A sudden loss of public grazing would push many multi-generational, family-run western outfits out of business. This would accelerate the consolidation of the beef industry into the hands of larger corporate operations and potentially lead to rural private lands being sold off for subdivision and real estate development.

Summary​

If public land grazing ceased tomorrow, the price of a ribeye in Chicago or Atlanta wouldn't change, but the economy of rural western ranching towns would face a steep contraction. The practice is less about driving the national food supply chain and more about sustaining the specific economic framework of Western rural communities.

 

[Trial153]

So we are subsidizing an industry in a location that the industry can’t exist and compete without out subsidization.
Got it. Screams scam. Generations of scamming, Politically skimming funds and legalized robbery of productive taxpayer and industry’s.

 

[KsRancher]

I think that most of that government land does need to be leased for cattle. But they lease it too cheap. In my opinion it needs to be a bid process. Can be a 10yr lease that goes up so certain percentage every year or every other. They are paying all but nothing for a cow/calf unit for summer grass.

 

[Phaseolus]

Is this true? Every time my dad takes a load to the auction you can’t wipe the smile off his face when he’s selling weaners for $5 Plus a pound.

Where is your Dad raising these? Is he grazing on private land with irrigation? Just curious.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

If you need thousands of acres to graze hundreds of cattle, maybe you shouldn’t be grazing cattle there? Maybe it should be public land just left wild? I’d rather have wild bison and other species there than cows.

In my drive across Montana and Wyoming, one of the things that shocked me the most was how few cattle there were on these huge landscapes. Obviously, there’s not enough water to do a proper rotational grazing program, but it all just looks low effort, highly inefficient, and a waste to me.

My family farm in Virginia has roughly 100 acres of hay, 200 acres of pasture, and the rest is mountain woods (not grazed). It comfortably supports a hundred head of beef cattle in a cow-calf operation. We don’t have to supplement with any other food sources. Most of the beef in this country is coming from places with enough water, not from the great American desert.

 

[EastHumboldt]

The family owned ranch that packs me into the Jarbidge wilderness when I’m lucky enough to get a tag there, owns a ranch with a small amount of private bottom land and a large amount of public lease. The outfitting / guide portion of their business is just a small part of their income. Ranching is the major portion of it. They are not filthy Rich. Removing or drastically increasing the cost of their subsidy, would devastate their income. If the ranch survived which is unlikely, I’m pretty sure the cost of getting packed in would triple. This is not a unique situation iand the scenario would play out thousands of times throughout the West.

As Poser’s AI post indicates, The effect on small ranchers and rural communities in Nevada and other western states would be devastating. The billionaires wouldn’t be hurt much, and would just find another way to scam the govt (and by projection, us).

Spitballing here, but may be some kind of income or net worth cap would have the effect of confining such programs to those who need them.

 

[Yoteassasin]

Why can’t we kill the feral horses and burros ?

 

[Sandhills]

If you need thousands of acres to graze hundreds of cattle, maybe you shouldn’t be grazing cattle there? Maybe it should be public land just left wild? I’d rather have wild bison and other species there than cows.

In my drive across Montana and Wyoming, one of the things that shocked me the most was how few cattle there were on these huge landscapes. Obviously, there’s not enough water to do a proper rotational grazing program, but it all just looks low effort, highly inefficient, and a waste to me.

My family farm in Virginia has roughly 100 acres of hay, 200 acres of pasture, and the rest is mountain woods (not grazed). It comfortably supports a hundred head of beef cattle in a cow-calf operation. We don’t have to supplement with any other food sources. Most of the beef in this country is coming from places with enough water, not from the great American desert.

Most beef in this country comes from the original great American desert, the plains states. And the amount of available water varies by location within those states. For example the average rain fall total for Valentine, Nebraska is around 14 inches but you go 2 hrs west it goes down to under 7. Everything isn't black and white. People have been running cows in the basin and range country since the Spanish owned it.

 

[RancherJohn]

There's a lot of poorly supported opinions in here, and some actual truths.

I will just say no one is getting rich off of a public land permit, and changing the system or removing it outright would bankrupt many small family operations. There's a multitude of reasons that permits are 'cheap' relative to private ground, from water to forage to access.

Do not conflate public/hunter access to landlocked public lands with grazing permits for privately owned cattle on public land. They are very different things.

 

[Hnthrdr]

No idea on the actual outcome. Not even sure how much of a strong opinion on this I can form because there are a lot of positions to consider. That being said, I ran the question through a AI model asking what would the outcome of the sudden elimination of public lands cattle grazing be out of curiosity. Response is below. Its interesting that the question seems to raise a similar outcome as closing military bases and the consideration for private businesses who are dependent upon them.

------

If the United States completely halted cattle grazing on public lands—primarily managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)—the impact on the price of beef would be surprisingly minimal at the national grocery store level, but severe for specific regional economies and individual operations in the American West.

The economic reality breaks down into a clear contrast between national macro-supply and localized ranching operations:

1. National Beef Prices: A Negligible Ripple​

At a nationwide level, a ban on public land grazing would cause barely a blip in retail beef prices.

• The Supply Percentage: Public lands contribute a very small fraction to the overall U.S. beef supply. Most estimates from agricultural economists and federal data indicate that cattle grazed on public lands account for only 2% to 3% of the nation’s total beef production, and supply less than 3% of total livestock forage nationwide.
• The Geography of Production: The vast majority of U.S. cattle are born, raised, and fed on expansive private rangelands and pastures in the Midwest, the Southern Plains (like Texas and Oklahoma), and the Southeast, where high-quality forage is much denser than in the arid West.

Because the national market could easily absorb or offset a 2% drop in supply through minor shifts in private production or international trade, the average consumer at the supermarket would likely see no noticeable price increase.

2. Regional and Local Impact: A Severe Shock​

While the national market wouldn't flinch, the story is entirely different for the Intermountain West (states like Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, and Nevada). In these regions, a public land ban would fundamentally reshape the ranching landscape.

• The Seasonal Chain Link: Many western ranches operate on a tightly balanced seasonal cycle. They use their private, irrigated valley bottoms to grow hay during the summer, while turning their cattle out onto federal mountain or desert allotments to graze. In the winter, they bring the cattle back to the home ranch to feed on the stored hay.
• The Forage Crunch: If federal permits were eliminated, these operations would lose their summer feed. Ranchers would be forced to choose between buying expensive private forage, leasing private land (which is highly competitive and often unavailable), or drastically downsizing their herds.
• Consolidation and Land Use Changes: A sudden loss of public grazing would push many multi-generational, family-run western outfits out of business. This would accelerate the consolidation of the beef industry into the hands of larger corporate operations and potentially lead to rural private lands being sold off for subdivision and real estate development.

Summary​

If public land grazing ceased tomorrow, the price of a ribeye in Chicago or Atlanta wouldn't change, but the economy of rural western ranching towns would face a steep contraction. The practice is less about driving the national food supply chain and more about sustaining the specific economic framework of Western rural communities.

Good take on it. I mean if we want all the smaller and mid sized outfits sold off to mega wealthy or corporations then yes let’s get rid of grazing public. Those two types are always better for public land users and hunters and anglers right?

 

[CJ19]

Hansjorg Wyss and the APR resemble that remark.

bingo. Feel however you want about this issue. Maybe you don't like cattle, maybe you do. That is your opinion to have. But be aware, the major players behind this issue happen to be the same people that are funding Animal Wellness Action who is offering a reward for a felony conviction in a recent case of interest (please no posts about that incident or individual) and also one of the primary parties behind Colorado lead ammo ban petition. Wyss funds 2/3 of AWA total budget through berger action fund. So for all you folks that are concerned about billionaire corporations controlling everything. The evidence is irrefutable and proves the connection and the people pushing the cattle v bison issue are the foreign anti-gun, anti-hunting billionaire corporate elite in this case.

Animal Wellness Action (AWA) - Influence Watch

www.influencewatch.org

Lead-Petition.pdf

cpw.widen.net

Hansjorg Wyss - Influence Watch

www.influencewatch.org

Berger Action Fund (Wyss Action Fund) - Influence Watch

www.influencewatch.org