The Welfare Cattle Empire That Controls Your Public Lands: article

[Ucsdryder]

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?

Probably not something that can be easily solved or understood on a RS thread but any time I hear “we need the government to give us something for free to survive” I’m pessimistic.

 

[KurtR]

I have shot all my biggest deer with cows watching me in public land. It’s funny people from the east think they have a little clue about ranchimg out west.

 

[Esteban]

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

Wildlife advocates call for justice after 9 horses killed in eastern Arizona

Advocates call for justice after 9 wild horses shot dead in Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest near Heber-Overgaard last week.

www.azfamily.com

You can

 

[Ucsdryder]

I have shot all my biggest deer with cows watching me in public land. It’s funny people from the east think they have a little clue about ranchimg out west.

The cattle get moved into an area I archery elk hunt sometimes. They move in around the close of ML season. As soon as they show up the elk move out. Not sure if it’s the cattle or the horses and dogs. Cattle and elk want to be in the same spots though, low depressions with aspens and lots of grass. The cattle mow it down in a hurry.

 

[AHayes111]

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.

The 1.6% used in the article and the less than 3% used above are misleading at best. Notice that they are using the amount of forage provided by public land and not the number of cow that use public land. The public land forage is just one link in the supply chain that is needed to get a calf to the stake on the plate. Remove that link and the whole supply chain breaks down.
General this is how a public land rancher operates.
Bring the cattle home in the fall off the public.
Sell or wean the calves.
Winter the cows on hay you made or bought.
Calve the cows in March, April.
Return cows to the Public range in late May or June.
When you sell the calves in the fall they are still a long way from the plate. There are several options on where they are headed
Straight to the feed lot where they are finished and slaughtered or put on a backgrounding ration and then put back on grass during summer and then they are back to the feedlot in late summer to be finished.
or they go to someone with winter pasture like winter wheat or corn stalks and then go to the feed lot to be finished.
Point is that wile the public forage is only small part of the forage needed to get the public land ranchers cattle to the plate, without it the cow does not exist. The people touting the less than 3% number act like you can just replace the public forage with the other forage sources easily. The rancher is not going to be able to switch to graze his hay fields with out a substantial cut in cow numbers. The wheat farmer in Kansas or the corn farmer in Iowa are not going to switch to growing grass. Numbers on the actual number of cattle on Public is hard to find, but eliminating public grazing would likely result in a reduction in the cow herd between 10 and 15 percent.
The less than 3% number is misleading at best and if the authors of the article are misleading you here they are likely miss leading you else where.

 

[KurtR]

The cattle get moved into an area I archery elk hunt sometimes. They move in around the close of ML season. As soon as they show up the elk move out. Not sure if it’s the cattle or the horses and dogs. Cattle and elk want to be in the same spots though, low depressions with aspens and lots of grass. The cattle mow it down in a hurry.

We have had a couple bull elk just live with cows around town the last few years. The cows and deer in the prairie here seem to always be around each other. Goats really dont care about the cows at all.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Probably not something that can be easily solved or understood on a RS thread but any time I hear “we need the government to give us something for free to survive” I’m pessimistic.

True… I’ll pick the low hanging fruit and play devils advocate here… our access to public lands all across this nation is mostly “free”
/ heavily subsidized. should we do away with it as well?

 

[ndmarine]

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.

Sounds good but show me a study…

 

[ndmarine]

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.

Who do you think feeds the AI algorithms? Noooot billionaires in big tech??

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.

You say there are a lot of poorly supported opinions on here, then generically say that no one is getting rich off a public land permit and that it would bankrupt small family ops…without supporting that assertion….

Care to share some supporting documentation?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

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.

People were running slave plantations back then too… having done something for a long time doesn’t make it good.

The kind of grazing at issue in this thread is low effort, highly inefficient beef production that depends on thousands of acres to raise hundreds of cows. It’s certainly a valid use of the land, but it’s not the only use of the land.

Year in, year out, a farm in my part of the world can support a cow and calf pair on about two acres of pasture and one acre of hay. It requires management and maintenance, but it works. The hardest part is dealing with the plus or minus ten cows needed for exceptionally wet or dry years, but even then there is usually plenty of flex (although this spring’s drought had us sucking our teeth and praying for rain).

 

[Ucsdryder]

True… I’ll pick the low hanging fruit and play devils advocate here… our access to public lands all across this nation is mostly “free”
/ heavily subsidized. should we do away with it as well?

Are we using it for commercial use? I think that’s the difference. If I’m going to film on it and sell the film, then I should pay. If I’m going to guide on it and make money off hunters, I should pay. If I’m going hiking or hunting, then my tax dollars are paying my usage fee.

 

[Half Nocked]

Read this with an open mind. The select monopoly wants you to ride the status quo and never question the system.

https://morethanjustparks.substack.com/p/the-welfare-cattle-empire-that-controls

Very very interesting article. Worth a read.

Good share sounds like lots of problems that will just never be addressed let alone fixed.

In my experience, I've seen good grazers and bad grazers. Usually the "bad" grazers are the ones trying to squeak some more pennies out of their allotment, to make ends meet. I do feel that the $1.69 per AUM is cheap and not on par with any private grazing fees, and the whole bison getting kicked off BLM allotments really pisses me off.

 

[Kurts86]

Public land ranching in the west is a drop in the bucket when considering national livestock production. It’s largely protected by the idea of the cowboy as a core American Archetype and not because of the $$ it generates for both producers or the government.

I’ve seen a lot of really bad rangeland management across the west that created voids of wildlife. I’m more concerned about that than the value of the leases. Also sheep have zero place in the west as they a disease vectors for bighorns with most all production being exported.

Agriculture is a welfare driven industry whether it’s a corn field in Iowa or summer range public land cattle in Wyoming. It’s just a matter of how the subsidies are buried (ethanol, CRP, almost free leases). Farming is important but the entire industry so far removed from the free market it needs a hard reset like New Zealand did in the 1980’s discontinuing all farm subsidies.

 

[KsRancher]

People were running slave plantations back then too… having done something for a long time doesn’t make it good.

The kind of grazing at issue in this thread is low effort, highly inefficient beef production that depends on thousands of acres to raise hundreds of cows. It’s certainly a valid use of the land, but it’s not the only use of the land.

Year in, year out, a farm in my part of the world can support a cow and calf pair on about two acres of pasture and one acre of hay. It requires management and maintenance, but it works. The hardest part is dealing with the plus or minus ten cows needed for exceptionally wet or dry years, but even then there is usually plenty of flex (although this spring’s drought had us sucking our teeth and praying for rain).

I live in cattle country of south central Kansas. Lots of 3000-5000 continuous acre pastures. Not a road thru them. Just good ol cattle county. I would say as an average that it takes 10-12 acres of grass to summer a cow/calf pair. That's just for 6 months. Some good pastures 8 acres. Some rough pastures it takes 15 acres

 

[StupidLightweight]

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.

I will conflate the two. Ranchers paying a few dollars to graze landlocked public land is the main argument used against fly-in access for public land hunters.

After being harassed and threatened on multiple landlocked parcels by neighboring ranchers who feel our public land belongs to them exclusively, I have no desire to subsidize their greed. They can pay fair market value.

Cattle grazing is one thing, but many also outfit on our public land, which is even more incentive for them to keep out the American taxpayer who is subsidizing their business ventures on public resources.

 

[CorbLand]

True… I’ll pick the low hanging fruit and play devils advocate here… our access to public lands all across this nation is mostly “free”
/ heavily subsidized. should we do away with it as well?

To play devils advocate to your question. Is there a difference between providing a “subsidy” that everyone that wants to gets a benefit versus one that a private individual gets to further their profit?


I am more wondering if people are finally realizing how much government money is injected into everything and keeping things moving forward. It doesn’t matter the industry, they all are subsidized in some form and the best PR campaigns are ran convincing you that they “need” it and you should be mad that some other industry is subsidized. Just pointing the fingers at everyone else hoping you don’t look at them.

 

[Phaseolus]

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

It doesn't sound like you are part of the Ag Community, sure, there are rich billionaires manipulating the system. Rich people do that in all walks of life. What you are missing with your broad brush are the small Family ranches. Another food for thought: Given many in our government want to sell off public lands it would make it easier to do so if you threw rancher out with the bath water first. That would make the case for land not being multiple use and thence sold to rich people which you profess to hate. Think about it.

 

[MtnW]

It doesn't sound like you are part of the Ag Community, sure, there are rich billionaires manipulating the system. Rich people do that in all walks of life. What you are missing with your broad brush are the small Family ranches. Another food for thought: Given many in our government want to sell off public lands it would make it easier to do so if your threw rancher out with the bath water first. That would make the case for land not being multiple use and thence sold to rich people which you profess to hate. Think about it.

Dude,
I hate mega rich people who are corrupt , read greedy, who’s main purpose is to cheat the system.
Not all mega rich people are dishonest and greedy. The ones I have distain for are the ones I know first hand , who use their money entirely to manipulate the government systems. These mega rich land owners are not concerned about anyone or anything outside of their empire building , and creating wealth through means that intentionally cheat the system . These people have hired staff and power attorneys on their staffs whose only jobs are to manipulate our tax systems for their own gain.