STEP 7 Increasing the grazing fee for Public Lands
The Public Lands Grazing Program has become a means to subsidize a limited number of elite wealthy corporate ranchers. Small ranch operations are excluded from the subsidy almost entirely. Overgrazing by cattle has damaged ecosystems and turned public lands into barren areas. Throughout the Western United States, the Bureau of Land Management is creating an environmental disaster.
Proposed Action
- Direct the Bureau of Land Management to increase the annual grazing fee. Currently the fee for grazing is only $1.35 on federal public land. The climate impacts of grazing cattle on federal land cost Americans $36 per month. Congress must direct the Bureau of Land Management to increase by creating a correction so that the negative impact to the taxpayer is eliminated.
- Congress should amend the Taylor Grazing Act and its implementation by BLM/FS/NPS to preclude holders of grazing permits to use public lands as collateral for private loans.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages around 18,000 grazing leases and permits across 155 million acres of public land in 13 states. This area is roughly the size of Oregon and California combined. While the BLM doesn't release an official head count, some advocacy groups and researchers estimate that the permits allow for about 1.5 million cattle to graze
ALLOWING THE MISINFORMATION FROM THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TO BE UNCHALLENGED ENABLES REPEATING THE SAME MISTAKES.
Challenging the misinformation puts the burden of proof on the Bureau of Land Management to prove ‘the negative argument’ that they have appropriately set the rates charged for grazing rights on Public Lands.
That proof will be very difficult in light of the recent science on the origin of the animals and the removal of the ‘Chevron deference’. The courts are no longer required to accept garbage propaganda from the agency as fact.
Taking this action also removes the possibility that under 'Project 2025'' the government might euthanize those in long-term holding.
Pushing back on the BLM to demand better use of taxpayer dollars again puts the BLM in a poor position to defend existing management practices.
Links to further resources:
STEP 7 Increasing the grazing fee for Public Lands
The Public Lands Grazing Program has become a means to subsidize a limited number of elite wealthy corporate ranchers. Small ranch operations are excluded from the subsidy almost entirely. Overgrazing by cattle has damaged ecosystems and turned public lands into barren areas. Throughout the Western United States, the Bureau of Land Management is creating an environmental disaster.
Proposed Action
- Direct the Bureau of Land Management to increase the annual grazing fee. Currently the fee for grazing is only $1.35 on federal public land. The climate impacts of grazing cattle on federal land cost Americans $36 per month. Congress must direct the Bureau of Land Management to increase by creating a correction so that the negative impact to the taxpayer is eliminated.
- Congress should amend the Taylor Grazing Act and its implementation by BLM/FS/NPS to preclude holders of grazing permits to use public lands as collateral for private loans.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages around 18,000 grazing leases and permits across 155 million acres of public land in 13 states. This area is roughly the size of Oregon and California combined. While the BLM doesn't release an official head count, some advocacy groups and researchers estimate that the permits allow for about 1.5 million cattle to graze
ALLOWING THE MISINFORMATION FROM THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TO BE UNCHALLENGED ENABLES REPEATING THE SAME MISTAKES.
Challenging the misinformation puts the burden of proof on the Bureau of Land Management to prove ‘the negative argument’ that they have appropriately set the rates charged for grazing rights on Public Lands.
That proof will be very difficult in light of the recent science on the origin of the animals and the removal of the ‘Chevron deference’. The courts are no longer required to accept garbage propaganda from the agency as fact.
Taking this action also removes the possibility that under 'Project 2025'' the government might euthanize those in long-term holding.
Pushing back on the BLM to demand better use of taxpayer dollars again puts the BLM in a poor position to defend existing management practices.
Links to further resources: