Wealthy ranchers like Stan Kroenke are reaping huge benefits from public lands, with some paying just 15% of the fees they would on private land. The federal government subsidizes their operations to the tune of $2.5 billion annually, while taxpayers foot the bill for disaster relief and crop insurance.
Kroenke's Winecup Gamble Ranch in Nevada is one example of a massive operation that benefits from public lands grazing. With nearly 1 million acres of land, it supports around 9,000 head of cattle. Last year, Kroenke paid the government just $50,000 in grazing fees - an 87% discount on the market rate.
The public-land grazing program, established in the 1930s to prevent overgrazing, has grown to include billionaire hobby ranchers like Kroenke, mining companies, and large corporate outfits. The program is set to become even more generous under the Trump administration's plans to open up more public lands to livestock.
Critics argue that this system is a "tyranny of the minority", with just 10% of ranchers controlling 60% of grazing on BLM land and 50% of grazing on Forest Service land. This concentration of control has been the status quo for decades, with lawmakers allowing an increasing number of grazing permits to be automatically renewed without environmental reviews.
The government's subsidy program provides benefits like cheap crop insurance, funding for fences and watering holes, and compensation for animals lost to predators. However, this comes at a cost to taxpayers and the environment.
In Nevada, the largest rancher, J.R. Simplot Co., benefits from subsidized forage by paying $2.4 million below market rate to graze nearly 150,000 animal unit months on federal lands last year.
Industrywide, the BLM and Forest Service collect just $21 million in revenue from ranchers, compared to $284 million below market rate for forage. This has led some critics like Jeff Burgess, who tracks public lands grazing subsidies in Arizona, to say that it's "a vestige of the past".
The livestock industry produces meat, leather, and wool, but these benefits largely accrue to a select few. Smaller ranchers struggle to compete due to economies of scale, making them vulnerable to economic downturns.
Mike Camblin, a small cattle operator in Colorado, relies on subsidies like drought insurance and cheap grazing on federal land to survive. However, he acknowledges that the system "tethers us to those subsidies" and fears losing his operation if public support ends.
Economist Silvia Secchi suggests reimagining federal grazing subsidies to benefit smaller ranchers and the environment. She proposes solutions like subsidizing co-ops for economies of scale, capping large ranching operations below market rate, and ending disaster payments for climate change-fueled droughts.
Kroenke's Winecup Gamble Ranch in Nevada is one example of a massive operation that benefits from public lands grazing. With nearly 1 million acres of land, it supports around 9,000 head of cattle. Last year, Kroenke paid the government just $50,000 in grazing fees - an 87% discount on the market rate.
The public-land grazing program, established in the 1930s to prevent overgrazing, has grown to include billionaire hobby ranchers like Kroenke, mining companies, and large corporate outfits. The program is set to become even more generous under the Trump administration's plans to open up more public lands to livestock.
Critics argue that this system is a "tyranny of the minority", with just 10% of ranchers controlling 60% of grazing on BLM land and 50% of grazing on Forest Service land. This concentration of control has been the status quo for decades, with lawmakers allowing an increasing number of grazing permits to be automatically renewed without environmental reviews.
The government's subsidy program provides benefits like cheap crop insurance, funding for fences and watering holes, and compensation for animals lost to predators. However, this comes at a cost to taxpayers and the environment.
In Nevada, the largest rancher, J.R. Simplot Co., benefits from subsidized forage by paying $2.4 million below market rate to graze nearly 150,000 animal unit months on federal lands last year.
Industrywide, the BLM and Forest Service collect just $21 million in revenue from ranchers, compared to $284 million below market rate for forage. This has led some critics like Jeff Burgess, who tracks public lands grazing subsidies in Arizona, to say that it's "a vestige of the past".
The livestock industry produces meat, leather, and wool, but these benefits largely accrue to a select few. Smaller ranchers struggle to compete due to economies of scale, making them vulnerable to economic downturns.
Mike Camblin, a small cattle operator in Colorado, relies on subsidies like drought insurance and cheap grazing on federal land to survive. However, he acknowledges that the system "tethers us to those subsidies" and fears losing his operation if public support ends.
Economist Silvia Secchi suggests reimagining federal grazing subsidies to benefit smaller ranchers and the environment. She proposes solutions like subsidizing co-ops for economies of scale, capping large ranching operations below market rate, and ending disaster payments for climate change-fueled droughts.
I'm still thinking about this public land thing... Like, why do these big ranchers get such a sweet deal? It's not like they're really helping out the environment or anything 
. They just get to use up our public lands and pay super cheap fees while taxpayers foot the bill for disasters and crop insurance 
. And it's not even like they're producing all that meat and leather for us, it's just a select few making bank off of it 
. I mean, Mike Camblin is struggling to make ends meet because he needs those subsidies or else his operation dies 
... isn't that weird? Shouldn't we be supporting smaller ranchers like him instead of just the big guys? 
. You gotta think about it, public lands are meant to be preserved for everyone's benefit, but when billionaires like Stan Kroenke get in on the action, it's a whole different story. I mean, 15% of grazing fees? That's just crazy talk 
.
. Now it's all about the Benjamins 
.
. Maybe it's time to rethink this system and give those who need it most some real support 
. We don't want our environment to pay the price for someone else's greed 
.
. Maybe we need to rethink what we're trying to achieve with public lands grazing - it seems like it's more about giving a handout to the wealthy than supporting actual ranching operations.
I'd love to hear some expert opinions on this.
. Sure, some might say it's unfair that 10% of ranchers control most of the grazing but I see it as an opportunity for these big ranchers to invest in their operations and create jobs 
.
️. Plus, it's just so cool to see these billionaires living off the land 
. I mean, who needs a 401k when you can have a million acres of public land to run your ranch? 
. And don't even get me started on the $2.5 billion that's being handed out to these big operators every year – it's like they're getting a free pass or something 
. Can't we have a more level playing field where everyone gets to thrive? 
. Maybe it's time for some radical changes 
, like the economist lady Silvia Secchi suggested - capping large operations and subsidizing smaller ones 
. It's just not right. I mean, I get it, some ranchers need help staying afloat, but come on, 87% discount for one guy? That's just unfair 
. They're already struggling to stay competitive with these huge corporate ranches that can take advantage of the subsidies. It's a real "tyranny of the minority" situation 
.
. We just gotta get the government to listen 
.
.
. Maybe capping how much they can graze, or providing subsidies for smaller ranchers too 
so rich ppl like Stan Kroenke r making bank off public lands grazing fees, getting like 87% discount 
. Meanwhile, smaller ranchers like Mike Camblin are strugglin' to compete because of economies of scale, and if the gov't pulls out those subsidies, their operations could fold