You are here:   Opinion
Register   |  Login

View Article

Print View

By Joe Guild, NCBA Federal Lands Committee Chairman and John Falen, Public Lands Council President

The U.S. beef industry is diverse, with a presence in all 50 states. Despite that diversity, we all have common goals of raising healthy beef in an environment free of overly burdensome government interference and to pass down successful operations and healthy natural resources to future generations. These goals are threatened by the growing number of laws and regulations that govern what we do. Federal lands ranchers have unique challenges. In the West, where the federal government owns roughly half the land mass, more than 22,000 ranchers have the challenge of running our operations, in part, on federal land.

Much cost and uncertainty accompanies our partnership with the federal land management agencies. They have high environmental standards and paperwork obligations to live up to—more, in fact, than they are able to handle. Environmental activists groups never miss a chance litigate especially when grazing permits are concerned.

The same radical groups that file the endless stream of lawsuits against grazing on federal lands have hailed the recent introduction of H.R. 3234, the “Rural Economic Vitalization Act” (REVA). The bill claims it will “help” struggling federal lands ranchers by allowing third parties to buy out ranchers’ permits and permanently retire those lands from grazing. Radical environmental groups have come out in full support, calling the bill a “free-market” solution. Why? Because these well-funded groups know that with just a little more threat and intimidation of litigation, they can make “willing sellers” out of every ranching family on the range, thereby achieving their agenda of a livestock-free environment—all cloaked in “free-market” terms.

True, federal lands ranching families are facing a tough uphill battle, dealing with drought, strict regulations, agency regulatory paperwork backlogs, endless environmental litigation, and other struggles. They do have the option of selling their grazing permits—for grazing, not for retirement. Current law requires that grazing permits stay in use until the federal government decides otherwise. REVA would put this decision in the hands of individuals and make it easy for environmental groups to permanently shut down grazing, West-wide. This is not a picture of rural economic vitalization. This is the definition of destruction.

Honest-to-goodness “rural vitalization” would come from ranchers’ becoming more secure in their grazing permits as investments. Fortunately, some lawmakers have stepped up to promote the stability and longevity of the federal lands grazing program. Senator John Barrasso’s (R-Wyo.) Grazing Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 1129) would decouple ranchers’ long-term business plans from the bogged-down regulatory backlog that places their futures on hold. It would also make for a fairer fight in the appeals process, providing commonsense safeguards to ranchers against arbitrary agency decisions. Altogether, S. 1129 would greatly reduce the environmental litigation currently flooding the system.

S. 1129 would allow ranchers to think long term about what kind of land and resources they want to pass down to the next generation. REVA’s answer to alleviate ranching families’ struggles is simply to remove them from the picture. While there are many pressures on federal lands ranchers to get out of the business, we must not succumb to the defeatist attitude that the only solution is to end grazing on the federal estate. Too many families and rural communities count on us to forge ahead to find answers that keep grazing as a viable part of the western landscape. Join with us to stand up for federal lands ranching and to work with lawmakers like Senator Barrasso to strengthen this industry for generations to come.

###

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) has represented America's cattle producers since 1898, preserving the heritage and strength of the industry through education and public policy.  As the largest association of cattle producers, NCBA works to create new markets and increase demand for beef.  Efforts are made possible through membership contributions. To join, contact NCBA at 1-866-BEEF-USA or membership@beef.org.
 
 
© Copyright 2011 National Cattlemen's Beef Association, all rights reserved.

 

Comments

Marko Manoukian
# Marko Manoukian
Tuesday, December 20, 2011 2:19 PM
At the Range Beef Cow Symposium in Mitchell, NE I learned that world food production will have to increase 100% (Elanco Animal Health) and products from animals will have to double by 2050 to feed 9.3 billion people. USDA Secretary Vilsack estimates that world food production will have to increase 70%. Nevertheless, the 60 to 75 million people that are joining the earth each year will need food.
Will the leaders of the US position us to participate? We are in a global competition for the resources (fuel, fertilizer etc) to grow food. We better use our resources efficiently to remain competitive. Range livestock production is environmentally sound and wildlife friendly in addition to feeding people.
Walter Morris
# Walter Morris
Wednesday, December 21, 2011 9:49 PM
The present attitude of most people in power is totally opposite of the plan that must be advanced to sustain the increase in population that is happening in this world.
The people of not only the United States but all countries must attempt to increase the ability of the world to provide food for all people. Much of the world is only suited for growing plants which are utilized by ruminant animals and produce protein which is essential for the health of humans. We are presently being fooled into believing that we must waste this great resource and thus give up a huge opportunity to not only feed the world, but to produce a trade surplus for this country to offset the huge debt being put upon us by the spend yourself rich and make the earth green folks now in a position of huge influence in this country. We must again take advantage of our production opportunities and overcome the selfish power struggle being put forth by the so called environmental groups. We must stop these groups from making a living by suing our government and destroying this country with our own money.
Eric Sauerhagen
# Eric Sauerhagen
Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:27 PM
Lets stop trying to feed the world. Does anyone really believe that it is even possible to increase food production by 100% by 2050? Thats unrealistic at best. Increasing our cattle herd by 100% by 2050 would be devastating to our land. We would then have to enter the permit process for grazing on federal lands and devaste those lands. Personally were not in the business of feed the world, devastating our own lands, or public lands. Smaller is better.
Marko Manoukian
# Marko Manoukian
Sunday, March 11, 2012 10:49 PM
Eric:

I have several numbers for your consideration: $1.3 Trillion, $15.5 Trillion, and $559 Billion. The first number is the US Deficit, the second number is the US Debt, the last number is the US Trade Deficit. Due to high cost and persistent drought, the US beef cow herd is the smallest since 1952. The US consumer eats about 90% of what we produce and we export 10%. We need to increase exports (in all categories) or we are going to leave future generations with the burden of paying all of this off. Please go read "The Moment of Truth", it is the report of the First Debt Commission. You only need to read the first 6 pages. The time is ticking for the next generations to enjoy what previous generations have.

Post Comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

CAPTCHA image
Enter the code shown above in the box below