National Forest and BLM grazing fees

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
Post Reply
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
Posts: 1327
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.

National Forest and BLM grazing fees

Post by dave54 »

https://www.fs.usda.gov/news/releases/u ... t9wG7lqjzw

Before any on-line flame wars start (not my intention), I would like to also note the FS Recreation and Wilderness budget for FY2021 is $263 million, and will have an estimated 150 million recreation visitor days. That works out to ~$1.75 per person per day, or ~$25 per permit for a two person week long backcountry permit. Most of us do not pay that. Backpackers are also subsidized by the taxpayers.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
User avatar
Wandering Daisy
Topix Docent
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:19 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Fair Oaks CA (Sacramento area)
Contact:

Re: National Forest and BLM grazing fees

Post by Wandering Daisy »

You are comparing apples to oranges. Grazing permits are a cost of business, and the cattleman then makes a profit from this cost. The backpacker is a recreationist makes no money off his activities. As for government "subsidy", I totally am fine with that because this allows our public lands to be economically accessible to all incomes. Similar to a city park. All taxpayers pay for city parks as part of the public good whether they use the park or not. The grazing fees are paid by those who directly benefit monetarily from them, which it should be.

Recreational fees are not going to solve the underfunded public lands. The Feds need to put more money in the pot. I think you would find very few tax payers who are unwilling to have a small part of their taxes spent on National Parks or National Forests.

I say all this because I grew up in a poor family and back then camping in a National Park was totally free. It was the only vacation we could afford.
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
Posts: 1327
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.

Re: National Forest and BLM grazing fees

Post by dave54 »

Not really an apples/oranges. The two are very similar. All users of the public lands are subsidized to some extent, and it is hypocritical to complain to about one group getting a bargain while being silent on your own benefit. I have my geezer pass and use it every opportunity, even though I am comfortable enough financially to not need it and would not be a hardship if the pass program were ended. So I do not voice opposition to the grazing fee structure.

Both grazing and recreation are original uses of the National Forests, and both are written into legislation as an allowed use of the land. National Forests were created to be utilized and the resources developed, for the benefit of local communities as well as the nation at large. Grazing is well within that mandate.
I do not want to get into a discussion on the fairness of the fee formula. It is set by law and neither political party has shown any interest in revising it. As the linked article notes, the current fee is at the statutory floor and cannot go lower. Probably would be lower if there were no floor.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
User avatar
balzaccom
Topix Addict
Posts: 2952
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:22 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: National Forest and BLM grazing fees

Post by balzaccom »

While I understand your point, I think Daisy is correct in noting that those who access our national lands for recreation are in a different category from those who use those lands to make a financial profit. I would argue that the nation's health and welfare benefits from such recreation. Not sure the nation (other than a few cattlemen) benefit from their grazing activities.

But it is also clear that grazing cattle in our national forest wilderness areas in California is a money losing proposition for those who do it. None of them do it because it is profitable. They do it to preserve their right to continue to do it, which has been grandfathered in. So they lose money, the Forest Service certainly doesn't make any money, and the cattle notoriously degrade the ecosystem. It's a lose/lose all the way around...unless you love running cattle drives, in which case you owe your grandfather a debt of gratitude.
Check our our website: http://www.backpackthesierra.com/
Or just read a good mystery novel set in the Sierra; https://www.amazon.com/Danger-Falling-R ... 0984884963
User avatar
TahoeJeff
Topix Fanatic
Posts: 1223
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:03 am
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker
Location: South Lake Tahoe, NV

Re: National Forest and BLM grazing fees

Post by TahoeJeff »

balzaccom wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:15 pm Not sure the nation (other than a few cattlemen) benefit from their grazing activities.
Do you eat beef?


From the USDA website (underline added):

What We Do
We provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on public policy, the best available science, and effective management.
We have a vision to provide economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve our Nation's natural resources through conservation, restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands.


(sorry SSSdave for the blue font hijack)
"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

Milton Friedman
User avatar
Wandering Daisy
Topix Docent
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:19 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Fair Oaks CA (Sacramento area)
Contact:

Re: National Forest and BLM grazing fees

Post by Wandering Daisy »

Whether cattle ranching is economically feasible or not depends on where you graze. I have friends in Wyoming who run cattle and they primarily have BLM leases. Lots more BLM land than FS land in the entire west. My friends are not making huge profits by any means, but over the long run they make a living, but are dependent on the current low grazing fees. I am not anti-ranching by any means. Most of the ranchers I know have a stake in preserving the land and they follow good grazing practices. But, grazing leases are still "commercial". Other "commercial" recreations also pay fees (such as organized groups and guides and outfitters).

The question is should the individual backpacker or other recreational user pay fees just to set foot on the land when it is our tax dollars that historically have been our source of "payment". Should I fork over more money just to use Forest Service land because the Federal Government has been horrible in doing its part in supporting the Forest Service? And we backpackers DO pay fees; Whitney Zone permit fees, fees in Desolation Wilderness (the same if not more than your example of equivalent grazing fees). Campground fees about 5-10 times grazing fees. Also, I would bet that backpackers are not the majority of recreational users of Forest Service lands.

An example of "user fees gone wrong" is California State Parks. They have priced me out of the market.
User avatar
rlown
Topix Docent
Posts: 8225
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Wilton, CA

Re: National Forest and BLM grazing fees

Post by rlown »

I'm wondering why you are still in Cali, WD. Wyoming tax rates are lower. Other than really cold winters, you would be closer to the Winds.
All Cali is going to do is raise taxes based on the current voters.
User avatar
balzaccom
Topix Addict
Posts: 2952
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:22 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: National Forest and BLM grazing fees

Post by balzaccom »

TahoeJeff wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:41 pm
balzaccom wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:15 pm Not sure the nation (other than a few cattlemen) benefit from their grazing activities.
Do you eat beef?

[/color]

(sorry SSSdave for the blue font hijack)
Not as often as the beef council would like, I am sure. :p I am also sure (knowing a few cattle ranchers myself) that none of the beef i eat is from cattle run in Wilderness areas in the Sierra. that is a hobby for a few ranches. It is not economically viable as a business model. It may be in Wyoming or other areas, but not in the Sierra. This is High Sierra Topix, right?
Check our our website: http://www.backpackthesierra.com/
Or just read a good mystery novel set in the Sierra; https://www.amazon.com/Danger-Falling-R ... 0984884963
User avatar
Wandering Daisy
Topix Docent
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:19 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Fair Oaks CA (Sacramento area)
Contact:

Re: National Forest and BLM grazing fees

Post by Wandering Daisy »

Well, we do, on HST, have a sub-form called "Beyond the Sierra".

As for moving back to Wyoming, well, I also love the Sierra! And it is hard to walk on the beach next to crashing waves while in Wyoming. :D
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests