Bill Overview
Title: A bill to amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to ensure that ranchers who have grazing agreements on national grasslands are treated the same as permittees on other Federal land.
Description: This bill applies terms and conditions for grazing leases and permits currently applicable to land in national forests to all National Forest System land.
Sponsors: Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: Ranchers with grazing agreements on national grasslands
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill aims to ensure that ranchers with grazing agreements on national grasslands are treated the same as those on other Federal lands.
- Ranchers who use national grasslands for grazing would be directly impacted as the bill affects their lease and permit conditions.
- Ranchers and farmers who rely on national forests for grazing will likely see changes in their operations.
- There could be associated effects on the local economies that rely on ranching activities.
- The environmental and conservation groups concerned with land management may also be indirectly affected.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects ranchers with grazing permits on national grasslands, a specific subset of the population.
- The main impact involves aligning the terms of grazing leases across different federal lands, which could stabilize operations for ranchers with current leases.
- The population directly affected is relatively small, but due to the extended family and community ties typical in ranching, indirect effects will spread wider.
- Environmental groups could show concern about grazing impacts, but may not be directly affected unless the policy also includes stricter management standards.
- Economic impacts in rural areas could vary, but stabilizing operations might lead to positive outcomes in local economies reliant on ranching.
Simulated Interviews
Rancher (Montana)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad they're standardizing the grazing permits.
- It should make it easier for us to plan our yearly grazing without worrying about conflicting rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Wyoming)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that the application of these terms might lead to less stringent environmental protections.
- We need to ensure that grazing does not harm biodiversity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Farmer (Colorado)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Standardized rules should help make our business more predictable.
- If done right, it’ll level the playing field for all ranchers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Rancher (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a step towards fairness among ranchers.
- I hope younger ranchers benefit from this stability like I wish I did.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Ranch Hand (New Mexico)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could provide more job security if ranches stabilize their operations.
- Flexibility in leases would help us plan better as workers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Rancher (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any simplification of permits is welcomed as we deal with overwhelming paperwork.
- This could make ranching more viable for younger generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Logger (Idaho)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It might indirectly affect timber sales if the environment or economy shifts, but my job isn’t directly involved.
- Potentially, long-term changes could benefit natural resources management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Economist (Nevada)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Economic stability is likely, though impacts are hard to quantify.
- Standardized leases could promote investment in ranching operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Local Business Owner (South Dakota)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Simplifying grazing permits is good for business.
- It could stabilize our customer base if ranchers do better long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Wildlife Biologist (Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy affecting grazing needs to consider wildlife impacts.
- It's crucial to balance ranching needs with conserving natural habitats.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $30500000, High: $71500000)
Year 3: $52020000 (Low: $31200000, High: $72800000)
Year 5: $54080000 (Low: $32400000, High: $75600000)
Year 10: $59000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $83000000)
Year 100: $70000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $98000000)
Key Considerations
- Uniform standards may encourage investment in ranching operations due to reduced policy uncertainty.
- Alterations to land management policies could have ecological impacts, necessitating careful consideration.
- Increased operational efficiency might not transfer equally across all regions due to varying local needs and landscape types.