Western Rangelands Reform: An Analysis of the 1996 Senate Vote on Federal Grazing Fees

By Fennemore, Gerald A.; Nelson, Jon P. | Contemporary Economic Policy, July 2001 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Western Rangelands Reform: An Analysis of the 1996 Senate Vote on Federal Grazing Fees


Fennemore, Gerald A., Nelson, Jon P., Contemporary Economic Policy


JON P. NELSON [*]

Grazing of livestock on public lands is a controversial environmental issue, despite a long history of federal regulation of this activity. Environmentalists and economists have argued that grazing fees charged by the Bureau of Land Management subsidize livestock operators and that higher fees would help bring rangeland usage in line with environmental and economic goals. In 1996, the U.S. Senate voted to determine whether higher fees would be charged for use of federally owned land. Based on a theoretical model, probit regressions are used to analyze this vote with respect to the influences of the general electorate, special interests, party affiliation, senatorial preferences, and electoral security. We find that political competition among producers utilizing federal lands was a crucial factor in determining voting decisions. However, environmental interests had a smaller direct impact on the grazing fee vote. (JEL Q24, Q18)

I. INTRODUCTION

Grazing of livestock on public lands is an environmental issue that has been the topic of political and economic debate for several decades. In 1996, the U.S. Senate considered legislation that would establish higher grazing fees on federal lands, an issue that pitted ranching and environmental interests in the use and management of western rangelands. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV; (http://www.lcv.org)) singled out this issue as one of the Senate's major environmental votes of 1996. The objective of this article is to analyze the Senate's vote on grazing fees as a test of the economic theory of legislation as applied to environmental issues. There are several reasons why this issue is of interest for economic analysis. First, grazing issues are often cast in the context of the "jobs versus the environment" trade-off. This trade-off receives considerable attention in the popular press but has been largely overlooked in the academic literature on voting. More generally, federal grazing fees use subsi dies as a way of "creating" jobs (Hess and Holechek, 1995). Second, congressional votes on grazing fees and procedures are potentially affected by several special interest groups, including Western ranchers holding low-cost grazing permits; non-Western livestock interests; other users of federal lands (recreation, tourism, energy, mining, forestry, waste disposal); and environmental interests (wilderness, biodiversity, wild horses, endangered species, cultural preservation). One possible outcome is that Western ranchers are pitted against an uneasy coalition of conservation-preservation and special-use interests. Third, previous empirical voting studies tend to support the notion that legislators systematically find it in their self-interest to concentrate benefits and spread costs widely. Hence, Peltzman (1984, 184) argues that the larger and more defined the wealth stakes in a vote, the more important are constituent characteristics.

Although public land policies were important in national debates during the early part of the twentieth century, these policies received less attention after the 1930s (Calef, 1960; Culhane, 1981; USDI, 1977). The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the Grazing Service (later Bureau of Land Management, BLM), and gave existing livestock ranchers formal recognition of previously informal privileges through a system of grazing districts, advisory boards, land allotments, permits, leases, and low-cost grazing fees (Libecap, 1981). The criteria for permits gave preference to ranchers who owned nearby land, held water rights, and who were using federal rangelands. Permits were authorized on a ten-year renewable basis, and grazing rights could be transferred to a new owner if the private land was sold. This gave ranchers limited, but relatively secure, property rights in grazing on public lands (Lambert, 1995). Hence, grazing rights are capitalized into the value of private lands, and permit values are recognize d as an asset by lending institutions and the Internal Revenue Service (USDI, 1977, 3-8).

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Western Rangelands Reform: An Analysis of the 1996 Senate Vote on Federal Grazing Fees
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?