Permit Value: A Hidden Key to the Public Land Grazing Dispute

It would be easier—and more just—for the federal government to fairly compensate the permit holders as it reduces cattle numbers. Since the government spends substantially more than it receives for grazing, in a few years the savings realized by reducing livestock numbers can pay for the compensation.

It would be less expensive—fiscally and politically—or the agency to simply buy out the problematic grazing permits and save extensive planning, monitoring, research, public involvement, appeal, litigation and political costs.

Below is a solution to an environmental problem that requires less government regulation. Federal law should be changed to:

There would be no penalty to the permittee for not grazing. This would give desirable flexibility to ranching operations, decrease livestock grazing damage, and could also increase the value of the permit, in the event the permittee later wished to sell. An allotment with more forage is more attractive to both prospective livestock operators and conservation buyers.

A permittee could choose to sell to the federal government, receiving fair market value for their interests in the permit. Money to fund tax deductions and for acquisition of permits by federal agencies could be funded from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, by reducing agency grazing budgets, reallocating US Department of Agriculture animal damage control subsidies, by using the Range Betterment Fund, or earmarking that small fraction of the federal grazing fee that actually makes it into the federal treasury.

Alternatively, a permittee could be paid by an individual environmentalist, a state fish and wildlife agency, a private conservation organization, a hunting and fishing club, or anyone else to retire their permit. If it was in the form of a donation to the government, a federal income tax deduction would be available.

Any legislation must expressly state that this change in law in no way increases or diminishes any vested interest the permittee may or may not have in public land grazing; that grazing the public lands is still a privilege and any reduction in grazing by the government is not a compensable loss to the permittee.

Existing laws designed to protect the environment would not change. The administering agencies could still choose (or be ordered by a court) to reduce, eliminate or further condition grazing to protect the environment or other public values.

Appendix C          Page Top          Appendix E