Main Street, Wyoming; 407; Future of Wyoming Ranching

Mainstreet Wyoming is made possible in part by grants from Kennicott energy. Proud to be a part of Wyoming spookier in the uranium exploration mining and production industry. And by the Wyoming Council for the Humanities and ridging lives of Wyoming people through the study of Wyoming history values and ideas. The Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt has declared 1993 the year of decision for public lands in the West to Babbitt and several members of Congress. That means big changes in the ways ranchers operate on federal lands possibly higher grazing fees more environmentalists on advisory boards. Government ownership of water rights and improvements made on the ranches that it calls it a new land ethic. Some livestock users are calling it a war on the West. Today we'll visit with some of the field commanders on Main Street Wyoming. I. Mean.

Welcome to Main Street Wyoming. I can't imagine that anyone living in Wyoming does not have among their friends people who ranch. So when we hear that the federal government is about to raise the rent or cut the subsidies. Someone we know is bound to take a hit. Today we're going to talk to some people in and out of the livestock industry about the proposal by the U.S. Department of Interior to more than double grazing fees for cattle on public lands. We're also going to talk about the impact on the sheep industry of removing a federal wool subsidy but this is more than a debate just about how many cents you can pile on the grazing fees without breaking a cow's back. It's about the future of the West our landscape and our neighbors and ourselves. With me today are Bob Budd. He's the executive director of the Wyoming stock Growers Association and comes from an old ranching family worked in the Pinedale and Dubois area. Well Bob on his left is

Frank Philp. He currently represents eastern Fremont County District 34 in the Wyoming House of Representative. He lives in Hidden Valley and farms and raises sheep and cattle in my sight. And guess hills looking right across from him is Larry means he's formerly with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management. He's now retired in the Landru area and is representing the Audubon Council of Wyoming Larry Craig. Jeff also here is Al Peerson. He's the district manager of the Rolands Bill M district Bureau of Land Management. He was raised on a family farm in Colorado and has done stints in Montana and Washington D.C.. Thanks for joining us. Thank you. I think we have to start with the numbers and hope that we don't get totally bogged down in them but obviously the proposals that we've been hearing about in the news this year this fall have been to raise the cost per animal UNIT Month for grazing whether it's sheep and cattle on federal public lands. One of the

proposals I think it was just before Congress would have jumped it up above $3 Barun prairie em from the current dollar 90 or 91 somewhere in there. And I guess that with that proposal filibustered to death we're now looking at some other proposal coming from the Interior Department from Secretary about it that maybe even the higher res in the Emirates. Bob I'd like to start with you and say how unthinkable is this possible raise in grazing fees to the livestock industry and increase is not unthinkable as some people would have you believe. Certainly we have looked at possible increases in the fee but I think when we talk at this lawless magnitude of increase that's been proposed to date is 80 percent. And it doesn't matter what business you're in if one of the critical components of your business. The cost goes up 80 percent and then you can take it out on up from there on proposals have gone to 250 300 percent increases. Obviously that is not acceptable.

What does it within the industry itself. Obviously there must be talk about what we can live with and what we can't live with. And I think Senator Campbell from Colorado had a proposal to raise it too. I think that to 30 per a you and Hariya I mean is that is there is there actually a number that the livestock industry looks at and says that would be OK. No and I think that maybe is one of the hard things for the public to understand if you just set a number and throw it out we'll go through this debate every year in Congress. And frankly that's not an advantage to anyone. What we would like to see is a formula or a methodology which derives the value of the foreach which is what we pay for and what we get on federal lands without something that's going to rise and fall as the existing formula has. Then you really are just making a political decision and throwing bread on the water I guess see what happens to it or something. But the industry has

accepted the Nighthorse Campbell proposal and that I think takes it to 33 to 35 over a three year period because it does value for each and that's something that we think is important. Frank what's your perception of this of these various proposals have been put forth to raise the grazing fees as well. And of course being a sheep person mostly we raise we have mostly sheep or French and right now in the sheep industry we of course we're faced with low prices for lamb and wool and no increased predator losses. We are competing with foreign subsidized foreign competition and then at a time when our own incentive payment program through the wool Act is being phased out. So it's a difficult time for sheepherding and choose to pay more. We talk though also about the question of fairness what's what's appropriate and I guess one of the questions that a taxpayer who is not from a ranching community might have is am

I in fact subsidizing to help the livestock raising people survive. Am I am I paying in and not getting back. Well I think from the from the livestock industry that the taxpayer gets back in the form of improvements on the federal land and actually in most cases grazing land is in better condition and healthier than land that hasn't been grazed for long periods of time. The soil is protected better in the water it's a better water issue as I understand it. Right now the grazing fees are not higher than they were in 1980. That's a lot of years and a lot of inflation under the bridge and I guess what I'd like to hear from either you or Bob would be whether you feel there is a need or even it would it be correct to think about raising those fees at some point now. Well I think it needs to be devised on the basis of a

formula that we pay for what we actually get. In the case of Private leases of course you get a lot more when you pay a $12 a month than you would get on a or b l m lease. Let's let me stop you for just one but let's clarify that for viewers who may not be familiar with the numbers what does one in Wyoming pay for privately least grazing land approximately. I would say in the range of eight to twelve dollars and for federal land or federal lands of dollar 96 where it is now and then they continue on there on that. But with a private lease there's is more to to a branch than than just the grass. So there it takes a lot of facilities corrals the ranch buildings themselves water that's been developed and in many cases the water is on private land. And our ranch is not just

it's it's not just the grounds that the earth the land that's there it's it's a whole it's an integrated thing a ranch is in it. It provides a lot for for wildlife being an intact ranch that's in an intermingled land pattern in Wyoming if you were to break up those land patterns into to the on the basis of the ownership actual ownership of the land. It would have been it would have a devastating impact not only for livestock production but for for wildlife as well. We're going to talk at length I think about those benefits those what you might call subsidiary benefits but I want first. Having said I don't want to dwell on the numbers I want to dwell on them a little bit longer and talk to a representative of in fact the agency that administer administer some 180 million acres nationally anyway. A lot of acres to simony billion plus or minus. OK.

What in fact does the agency feel it invests in administrative costs per AQIM for this federal land that is grazed by private ranchers. I think you can get a variety of answers on that. Perhaps a range and something done locally is a recent study out of the university that placed something in the 240 range and that's probably the reason why it's probably fairly close. It's difficult to determine exactly what it costs us to administer the grazing program because a lot of what at least some of what we consider time spent administering the grazing program is actually benefit of the resources watershed wildlife. A lot of other a lot of other resources so when you manage a piece of land for multiple resources multiple uses it's very difficult to split out and say this is

exactly how much you spend on range management. And this is how much you spend on wildlife management. Even though our funds are appropriated that way and we track that as best you can it's very difficult to track it down to the very penny. But in general are you suggesting that in fact the investment that the government is making in administering this program in fact is not returning more than it's putting. I believe that a fair statement. Yes. I'll give others a chance to argue that if you if you want to but I also have to give Larry a chance to talk a little bit about the conservation community's view of I guess what I'd like would be a general view of the way public land agencies are administering these lands and for whose benefit. Well the the Audubon Society and the conservation community as a whole feels that the public land management agencies like the bill him and the Forest Service could do a better job of managing in a more coordinated way

for some time. We felt that the livestock industry as a whole has taken unfair advantage of the public lands. And that there should be a better shake given to the public into wildlife. There are a lot of people that contribute to the health of the public lands besides the landowners or the DCS the landholders at least can get subsidies from the Department of Agriculture from the state from the Environmental Protection Agency from the Game and Fish Department from the Fish and Wildlife Service service from the Bureau of Land Management from someone from Trout Unlimited from the One-Shot antelope hunt in a variety of other places. And all of these people help provide water cover or something on the public lands and sometimes on private lands and we think that these conditions should be recognized also or the value that these organizations put into the health of the public lands.

I agree that there should be a formula set up for the fees that are charged for a few games. But to go one step further I think that there should be a four huge allocation made for wildlife on those public lands so that they have an even break with the livestock industry. I think we're going to get into this question of the benefits the improvements for instance that the livestock industry has made on public lands. But I think we need to balance that at least somewhat by at least raising the question of some damage to public lands that has come about as a result of overgrazing it's certainly something you hear from the environmental community and in some cases we have seen firsthand there have been some instances of damage to public land by grazing. Could you respond to that a little bit. This whole question of what the livestock producers put into the public land on a positive side but also acknowledging whatever negatives you see which are

strictly dollar terms. And there's two way that livestock producers benefit public lands and in some instances actually take their own money. But range improvements on those public lands and do it themselves the other way is sort of the grazing face of the fees that are collected go back into range improvement fund what we call our 80 100 funds and those goes to our Drange improvements to the land. So direct money and to interchange improvements there's at least two ways that the livestock operators do do make improvements on those public lands. Perhaps more importantly though as is in the stewardship that most livestock operators demonstrate and managing their cattle and managing the lands that they run those cattle on. And as Frank pointed out earlier the Unfortunately there is not a nice neat line between public and private and

state and and all these lands typically there are mangled. And it's very difficult to say OK Frank you keep your sheep on your lands and certain day you can come on to the public land. You have to work together and has to be a cooperative effort. You can't do that you're not going to make progress so it's this whole issue can be cooperative or can be very divisive. And unfortunately we see both sides. But you're putting some of the money that you get into improvements that in fact are repairing previous damage to Grange correct. Correct. That's correct. Let let's talk a little bit about those improvements. I've got to give you guys more chance to talk on this because it comes directly to your work in your industry but my impression would be that at least some of these improvements are essentially stutterers improvements fencing water development that can be used for watering stock things like this that are beneficial to the rancher I presume and using those public lands. Again it's a little hard to separate what's done

that represents a firm and sure public benefit and what's done simply to improve the land that you're using the public and private land you want to address that a little bit. I think Al touched on perhaps one of the most important benefits and it's not something that is extremely tangible. We can't go out there and I guess we can go out and value it. But all five of us would do it differently and that is the value of stewardship. The fact that we have continued to produce livestock maintain open space and maintaining generally healthy ecological system in Wyoming for well over 100 years is evidence of that stewardship and how you value that. I'm not sure Jeff but that's that's the real thing. And when Frank talks about the difference in pricing the big cost to a rancher are not a fence that he puts in and fixes every year. It's not the cost of the wire and the staples it's the labor it's the cost of management it is all of those different components that go into running a ranch. And certainly

when you talk about capital improvements there are some that can be strictly livestock related such as working facilities. There are others that more recently have been put in to be mutually beneficial. At the ranchers expense and an example of that would be water developments that are set up with overflows that benefit waterfowl wildlife that sort of thing. Some of those you can get a cost share on some you can't. But the fact of the matter is that the people do it with or without it they're putting money out of their own pocket into those. That's the question when we talk about capital improvements What do you get back out of it. That's really not the big end when you try and talk about the feed. One is a capitalized value the other is an operational value year to year. And the big thing there as I said is labor interest the amount of money invested and stewardship values all of which are out-of-pocket expense to the rancher and not to anyone else and the ranchers though as I understand it some ranchers at least are also claiming that those capital improvements are in fact a property right.

They paid for them when they bought the ranch. And generally that is the case you as I think everybody knows when you buy a property in Wyoming you buy it based on how many livestock it will run. That's probably true throughout the United States. And part of that is a permit whether it's right or wrong I won't argue. All I can tell you is when a rancher dies the IRS taxes him on the value of that federal grazing permit. And on the other hand Secretary Babbitt and others say you have no value in it you have no vested interest in it. If that's the case fine. They owe a lot of back taxes to a lot of families who died and paid huge amounts for those values. And that's a little bit of the problem that we get into. Let's talk about the way it might skew the marketplace when we're looking at ranchers. Some ranchers are highly dependent on public lands. Some are not. Some might be 90 percent private 10 percent public some are 50 50. Wouldn't the advantage of an inexpensive federal lease somewhat skew the marketplace in situations like that.

Let me tell you what is happening in reality and I get several different realtors who send out their monthly listings in big letters at the bottom are the words no federal lands and the value per animal unit on those ranches is considerably higher than on those with federal permits. So he's going to so I guess about that. Yeah. The problem is that it perhaps could be seen to skew it as you as you brought up it actually does it the other way it is now devaluing the overall value. But you're talking about the property value I'm talking about the marketplace utility of that low cost lease. In other words grazing at a dollar ninety one per you am in competition with someone who grazes at $8 per view and would seem to be unbalanced. It would if you just throw that on the table I think one of the most telling things I know about that though is that that question came up when I was in southeastern Colorado from a rancher and I said sir I will tell

you this because I know it is a fact I can find you 20 ranches one in every county in Wyoming except Teton where we don't have any left. I can find you 22 ranches in Wyoming you can trade straight across for your place down here. If you're really serious and the guy didn't want to talk anymore. Well as an example I know this county. Oh man the big horns typically will get him the $12 you aim for them for the grazing. However that they will gain four or five times more than them on federal leases a month and besides that when they go together gather the counsel it takes a day out on a on a big BLM Lattman it can take a week or more back to the labor costs. And that's the labor cost and I was up in Maine because of the remote properties. Sure. And you travel bigger distances takes a lot more time and

longer hours per labor. I think Frank's getting pretty close to to some of the real issue as you know when that land became private in Wyoming there were homestead and they were lands the Lancet were Homeside and were the best lines the most productive are these folks coming out while they might not know a lot about ranching from from the Midwest or wherever they emigrated from they new good lands and obviously homesteaded the best the bail and am lands are what was left over. What people didn't want now I guess I need to be convinced that those lands are some six times less valuable than the private lands. If we're talking about grazing fees and the production on those lands I understand the labor and and the other management expenses go into them and there's there's a valid argument there. But in terms of production I would

concede they are in private lands typically are more productive some five or six times. Need to be convinced of that I guess. Could I use a term that will probably cause a little offense but I think it'll spark a little more discussion on an almost abstract level. We've got a number of taxpayer groups that are supporting grazing fee reform and they're doing it for fiscal reasons more than anything else. And the term that you have probably heard bandied about sometimes is welfare Cowboys people in the West who who you don't want to be self-reliant and have that image and yet are quite dependent on a fairly low lease cost that some taxpayer groups use a subsidy. Can you respond to that because that's a that's a fairly conservative charge against the ranching community that it's a kind of welfare system. I can I can say this that one of the proposals that has always been thrown on the table is if you want to charge the market rate the eight dollars then provide what someone else provides for eight dollars.

And if you truly believe that for eight to twelve dollars an animal you know that the BLM or the Forest Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service can care for those livestock provide the labor provide all of the required inputs and bring them back in the fall guarantee no more than a 2 percent death loss guarantee their health will pay the 8 bucks. OK. Go ahead Frank. Well you know on our ranch and especially on our our private land which is of better quality land there's more wildlife on on that land than there is on any of the federal land. And we don't charge people to hunt and there's millions and millions of acres in Wyoming where people are not charged to hunt and recreate and all those kinds of things. And I would just question who is getting welfare. OK. I want to talk about some other rather intangible things. And I think I'll start with Larry on this one. The the notion that there is a value

to having ranchers on the land maintaining agricultural open space in a sense has been touted by some conservation groups as well. Is that a recognized value in this discussion. I believe it is. I think that the family rancher has a very very high value to the culture of Wyoming and I for one in my group and several other groups will work to support this type of thing. We subsidize. We are subsidizing them through our taxes through one program through the Department of Environmental Quality and the environmental protection agency that deals with what they call 3:19 funds where we work with conservation districts and individual ranchers to improve Greenes land. Right Person areas. Any part of the of the ranch or agricultural system. And this is the type of subsidy the rancher or the

farmer may have in-kind contributions for his share of the project. And that is fine. You know that is a contribution but there is also this fund coming in from a Clean Water Act that is in effect in effect a subsidy. And I support this fully. I've worked with Bob and he's worked with the right person Association on many projects where we have improved wetlands in the right person areas on private lands. And this is a program what I feel is very worthwhile and I'd like to hear Bob Karmiel on this. I think you can get some good thoughts concerning this pretty good. And let's let's remember too that we were explaining this notion of assistance or subsidy and maybe that's too strong a word to the ranch and community to people who may have no connection to ranching and who may wonder about the investment that they may be making it. I think one of the things and I guess it's hard for me to swallow the concept Larry

that a a program that the industry did not ask for or a law has passed that the industry doesn't particularly care for. And then there's funding in it and that becomes a subsidy. I don't think that's entirely fair. But let me dress what what really is the good part I think and that is the fact that yes there are a number of things going on cooperatively with the with different groups with environmental groups ranching organizations in which there are a lot of monies. In some cases not much money just a lot of ingenuity that's being used in the sun ranch stewardship is one that has international recognition. We have hundreds of others in Wyoming where if we can place some of that money on the ground and use it to improve habitat if we can change management the slightest bit we've found tremendous results. And I think that's where we need to be going frankly in light of that I think that the fact that time and the energy we spend arguing over the grazing fee is really ridiculous. It isn't the issue and I don't think that ought to. If if you want my

honest opinion. If the land is in good shape and the steward is making his way toward what we all desire as far as a future goal he shouldn't pay anything. Well I won't go that far. I'll agree with you that the grazing fee is not the issue. I think the issue is water and I believe that you will agree with you in France and the conservation community is highly interested in water for wildlife for ourselves for clean drinking water for fish and all the rest. If we can work through a coalition with you to protect these waters and to make them more productive you know. We stand ready to work with you on this. What bothers us in large part is that there aren't many subdivisions springing up all over the country. Teton County Lincoln County Fremont Fremont County. And that becomes an argument for preserving agricultural open status as well as undeveloped open space. Absolutely. And that is one of the things that we need to work together. And

I think it would be just I think that's well put. And then the other thing I'd say is that as far as the water we need to look at what's the downstream demands are on Wyoming's water as well but we'll have to do it another time because we're out of time. Thanks for joining us. Thank you for joining us on Main Street Wyoming. This is just the first of several looks we're going to take on Main Street at Wyoming's agricultural industry at a crossroads. We're going to start with the people who deal with policies and legislation the ones you sometimes hear on the news that ultimately we're going to bring it back to the person that you know the neighbor who ranch's the person next door. Thanks for joining us. On. Mainstreet Wyoming is made possible in part by grants from Kennicott

energy. Proud to be a part of Wyoming's future in a uranium exploration mining and production industry. And by the Wyoming Council for the Humanities and ridging lives of Wyoming people through the study of Wyoming history values and ideas