6 ms·

I never understood why we should be expected to subsidize ranchers by giving them nearly-free* access to vast quantities of land. If they want to keep cattle,

I never understood why we should be expected to subsidize ranchers by giving them nearly-free* access to vast quantities of land. If they want to keep cattle, let them buy their own land and graze on that. (And by 'nearly-free', in 2015 the cost per head/month was $1.70 on federal lands).

gamblor956 7y ago
Due to the structure of Congress, ranchers are disproportionately represented in the Senate and House. Also, it's part of the food overproduction thing we do to make sure we have enough food for natural security reasons (like with soy, corn, milk, etc.).
bpodgursky 7y ago
BLM land is held in trust for the people to use. It's a commons. In Nevada, for example, the federal government owns 81% of the land. Similar in Utah and elsewhere. You can't just say "buy your own enormous tracts of land" when it's mostly held by the federal government. You're inverting the relationship of the government and the people when you approach land management with a mindset of "the government is being generous by granting access to the land". The BLM and federal land management have existed to prevent over-grazing and other tragedy of the commons scenarios. In a very meaningful sense, these ranchers DO own the land, and have chosen to work cooperatively in the past rather than try to parcel the lands out. If you really, really want to privatize these lands, you can, but I don't think that's a better outcome in the end than responsible land management. The point of holding resources in trust by the government is to help the people, not make a profit. Do you really want the federal government to try to make a profit by charging the highest highway tolls they can get away with? What about charging for beach access? The point of federal resource management is to preserve the resources for the people. Not extract maximum revenue from the people.
- ffdjjjffjj 7y ago
  In practice of course the only people who benefit from this “commons” are the ones who own lots of cows. It seems like it would be far more fair to charge a higher price and distribute that money equally to citizens.
  - bpodgursky 7y ago
    Do you also want to charge disneyland rates for beach access? For national parks? The only people who benefit from them are the ones who live near. You realize that most land in the country, period, was bought and given away for nominal prices, right? Farmland in the midwest is privately owned and was (almost) given away. Your house is built on land that was sold to homesteaders on the cheap. The point of government isn't short-term profit maximization. The only functional difference here is that grazing land wasn't as easy to manage if you privatized individual tracts. Those grazing rights have existed for generations, and the entire system was set up with the presumption that those were perpetual rights.
    - Retric 7y ago
      National parks get visitors from across the country, with individual parks getting up to 15 million visitors. Beach and river access are similarly popular nationwide. However, people must both live near and own cattle to benifit from this subsidy limiting things to 18,000 permits nationwide for 155 million acres. Charging market rates to parks thus has little upside for the general public as a large fraction visit parks, rivers etc. However, charging market rates for grazing is a net benefit to both the general public and ranchers outside the area. Finally, cows are actively harming the ecosystem in that area so there is a multitude of hidden costs to these subsidies.
  - syrrim 7y ago
    And the people who eat cows, who can get beef for cheaper. And the people who eat things besides beef, for which demand is displaced. Of wait, that's everyone.
  - grogenaut 7y ago
    You forget burning man and all the other people who use blm land. It's not all ranches. It's forests and deserts and watershed. It's just tons of land.
pnw_hazor 7y ago
In WA anyway, by law, range fees are based on market rates for leasing from commercial ranges. The ranges managed by tribes are also priced similarly. Typically, the per unit price is less than comparable commercial/private range rental because the price is adjusted downward because the government ranges provide almost no infrastructure support as compared to private ranges. Also, they offer less food per unit. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/product-sales-and-leasing/agriculture-and-grazing/grazing https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/product-sales-a...

gamblor956 7y ago

Due to the structure of Congress, ranchers are disproportionately represented in the Senate and House. Also, it's part of the food overproduction thing we do to make sure we have enough food for natural security reasons (like with soy, corn, milk, etc.).

bpodgursky 7y ago

BLM land is held in trust for the people to use. It's a commons. In Nevada, for example, the federal government owns 81% of the land. Similar in Utah and elsewhere. You can't just say "buy your own enormous tracts of land" when it's mostly held by the federal government. You're inverting the relationship of the government and the people when you approach land management with a mindset of "the government is being generous by granting access to the land". The BLM and federal land management have existed to prevent over-grazing and other tragedy of the commons scenarios. In a very meaningful sense, these ranchers DO own the land, and have chosen to work cooperatively in the past rather than try to parcel the lands out. If you really, really want to privatize these lands, you can, but I don't think that's a better outcome in the end than responsible land management. The point of holding resources in trust by the government is to help the people, not make a profit. Do you really want the federal government to try to make a profit by charging the highest highway tolls they can get away with? What about charging for beach access? The point of federal resource management is to preserve the resources for the people. Not extract maximum revenue from the people.

ffdjjjffjj 7y ago
In practice of course the only people who benefit from this “commons” are the ones who own lots of cows. It seems like it would be far more fair to charge a higher price and distribute that money equally to citizens.
- bpodgursky 7y ago
  Do you also want to charge disneyland rates for beach access? For national parks? The only people who benefit from them are the ones who live near. You realize that most land in the country, period, was bought and given away for nominal prices, right? Farmland in the midwest is privately owned and was (almost) given away. Your house is built on land that was sold to homesteaders on the cheap. The point of government isn't short-term profit maximization. The only functional difference here is that grazing land wasn't as easy to manage if you privatized individual tracts. Those grazing rights have existed for generations, and the entire system was set up with the presumption that those were perpetual rights.
  - Retric 7y ago
    National parks get visitors from across the country, with individual parks getting up to 15 million visitors. Beach and river access are similarly popular nationwide. However, people must both live near and own cattle to benifit from this subsidy limiting things to 18,000 permits nationwide for 155 million acres. Charging market rates to parks thus has little upside for the general public as a large fraction visit parks, rivers etc. However, charging market rates for grazing is a net benefit to both the general public and ranchers outside the area. Finally, cows are actively harming the ecosystem in that area so there is a multitude of hidden costs to these subsidies.
- syrrim 7y ago
  And the people who eat cows, who can get beef for cheaper. And the people who eat things besides beef, for which demand is displaced. Of wait, that's everyone.
- grogenaut 7y ago
  You forget burning man and all the other people who use blm land. It's not all ranches. It's forests and deserts and watershed. It's just tons of land.

pnw_hazor 7y ago

In WA anyway, by law, range fees are based on market rates for leasing from commercial ranges. The ranges managed by tribes are also priced similarly. Typically, the per unit price is less than comparable commercial/private range rental because the price is adjusted downward because the government ranges provide almost no infrastructure support as compared to private ranges. Also, they offer less food per unit. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/product-sales-and-leasing/agriculture-and-grazing/grazing https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/product-sales-a...