Americans love ranchers: Gritty ranchers, mom-and-pop ranchers, renegade ranchers — especially those who raise livestock on the vast open prairies of the West through a mixture of hard work and rugged independence. But there’s another side to the ever-popular rancher mythology— a side the media doesn’t cover and the public never sees. The Koch brothers, Ted Turner, the Hilton family and nine other powerful ranchers share an uncommon privilege: giant public subsidies, unknown to U.S. taxpayers. It’s the other side of the Cliven Bundy story, the other side of the Wright brothers saga—the bronc-riding, ranching family at the center of the New York Times photographic essay published this March. That “other side” of those stories is the federal grazing program that enables the Wrights to run their livestock on public lands for cheap; allows ranchers to have thousands of protected wild horses removed from public lands at public expense. It’s also the program that earned Cliven Bundy the title of "welfare rancher." Bundy didn’t earn it by failing to pay his grazing fees. The welfare rancher label applies to all ranchers who hold permits to graze the vast public spaces of the West, both delinquent and not. It includes the Wright brothers; the ranchers in Iron and Beaver counties in Utah complaining that wild horses eat too much; and 21,000 others. They are all welfare ranchers subsidized by US taxpayers, and you know who are the biggest welfare ranchers of all, grazing livestock on the hundreds of millions of acres of public grass and forest land, all assisted by public subsidies paid for by US taxpayers? Billionaires that populate Forbes rich lists. The .01 percenters. They are the nation’s biggest welfare ranchers, according to numerous environmental and policy groups; and it’s time they brought some attention to themselves, and the federal grazing program they’re exploiting to waste as much as $1 billion a year of taxpayer money while causing long-term damage to one of the public’s most treasured assets. Fifteen years ago, two percent of public lands ranchers controlled fifty percent of permitted grazing acreage, according to John Horning of WildEarth Guardians. Today, Horning says, that elite group of mega-rich owners has consolidated its hold on federal grazing property even further through grazing leases attached to the larger-than life ranches they inherit or buy outright. Along with that comes all kinds of perks paid for by taxpayers: the USDA’s wildlife services, which killed four million endangered and predator species in 2013 to help livestock operators. The costly and wildly ineffective Wild Horses and Burros Program which operates to the benefit of welfare ranchers. Numerous programs that work to undo the grazing damage that welfare livestock causes. And let’s not forget the bank loans that an estimated 45% of public lands ranchers obtain, using their grazing leases as collateral, and which heighten the value of their primary ranching property. Only 2.7 percent of the nation’s ranchers hold such leases. That’s a lot of costly benefits flowing to a small segment of the livestock industry. That two percent of them hold more than fifty percent of the acreage under that program? Never mind that two of the recipients love to attack all welfare programs that benefit the bottom tier of the economic pyramid. It’s the antithesis of rugged independence. It’s undemocratic, too. Their faces are absent from rancher stories. Some of that is media laziness. The other part is inconvenience. It takes a lot of digging to identify any public lands ranchers with precision. Why? Because the Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service (which administer most federal grazing leases) have record-keeping systems that are the antithesis of transparent. There is no central database. Finding out who’s doing what on federal lands requires identifying all the various LLCs that ranchers establish to hide who they are, then tracking down leases in 10 Western states. The BLM, for its part, isn’t eager to help. Call any BLM specialist and identify yourself as media, and they send you to a media representative. Most I reached out to didn’t return phone calls—not promptly, anyway. You want sensitive information? You’ll be stuck sending out Freedom of Information Act requests. I sent one in last April. It’s still outstanding. Paul Rogers of the San Jose Mercury News, in 1999, spent nine months collecting information on 26,000 grazing leases in order to write a comprehensive article (“Cash Cows”) on the money pit that was the federal grazing program at that time. Many of the same players then are still in the game, but the process of keeping tabs using real records is so arduous that no environmental groups do it. The way I came up with the names in list of 12 ranchers below was by interviewing multiple groups that work to reform public lands grazing and cross-checking names against news reports online. The estimates provided of leased acreage were provided by Jon Marvel, founder of Western Watersheds Project. Net worth figures and list rankings come from Forbes; the rankings of richest land owners from the Land Report 100. It’s not an exact science, but one thing is clear: the public is being lulled by stories about bronc riders like the Wright brothers and outliers like Cliven Bundy while ignoring the big picture: a handful of cattle rustlers—rich ones—whose hands are deep in the public’s pockets, along with all the other smaller permittees. And that’s what the new West is like. It’s still rough and tumble. But if you don’t have a big-ass ranch, a huge fortune and public assistance, you’d best just head for the hills. Some of America's biggest welfare ranchers: David and Charles Koch (Koch Industries) The brothers hold a half-dozen grazing permits on public land in Montana to go with its 300,000-acre Matador Ranch there. The brothers are tied for fourth place on Forbes 2014 400 Richest People in America list (net worth: $ 42 billion each). The Koch family ($ 89 billion) is #2 on Forbes Richest Families list; Koch Industries is #2 on Forbes America's Largest Private Companies list, ($ 115 billion in sales). J.R. Simplot Corp. The largest U.S. public lands ranching entity (with an estimated 2 to 3 million acres of allotments in CA, ID, NV, OR and UT) is #63 on Forbes 2014 list of America's Largest Private Companies ($ 5.8 billion in sales). In 2014, the family was #29 on Forbes list of America’s Richest Families (net worth: $ 8 billion). Bruce McCaw (McCaw Cellular) McCaw was #382 on Forbes 400 list of America’s Richest People in 2005 (net worth: $ 925 million). Through his 9 sprawling ranches, he controls a significant number of public grazing leases in ID and possibly NV. One of them (Camas Creek ranch) includes 272,000 acres of Federal grazing allotments in Idaho's Camas Prairie. Grazing permitted to his other ranches could easily double or triple that to a million acres or more. Barrick Gold The Canadian mining company is one of the two largest public lands ranchers in NV, ranking 771st on Forbes Global 2000 list of the World’s Biggest Public Companies in 2014, (sales: $ 12.56 billion). Like many other large public lands ranchers, Barrick buys ranches to secure water rights. Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) The supplier of drinking water to Las Vegas is a large NV public lands rancher with an estimated 1 million acres of public grazing allotments. Like Barrick Gold, it, buys up private ranches to gain their water rights. W. Barron Hilton (Hilton Hotels) The hotel heir dropped off Forbes Billionaires list (ranked #459 in 2011) as well as its list of the 400 Richest Americans (#144 in 2010), with a net worth of $ 2.5 billion. He died in 2013. Though records are hard to pin down, Hilton's heirs inherited a ranching operation in the CA-NV border area, which has been known to have vast public lands grazing allotments permitted to it. Mary Hewlett-Jaffe (Hewlett-Packard) Jaffe holds the largest BLM public lands grazing permit in central ID and is among the top 15 public lands ranchers in the state (estimated at under 200,000 acres that are said to be in extremely degraded condition, according to sources). James Barta (Sav-Rx.com) Barta is not on any Forbes rich lists, but owns one of the largest cattle ranching operations in the U.S., according to his attorneys. Barta holds grazing permits to nearly 900,000 acres of public grazing allotments in connection with two properties: White Horse Ranch (in OR) and Soldier Meadows (in NV). Barta may have additional NV grazing leases through two other ranches in NV, according to Jon Marvel, founder of Western Watersheds Project. T. Wright Dickinson Though not on any Forbes list, the Dickinson family is a large public lands rancher, with grazing permits estimated at more than a half million acres of CO, UT and WY public lands under its LLC, Vermillion Ranches. Dickinson is a former County commissioner and proponent of county efforts to gain control of federal lands, according to the Denver Post. Stan Kroenke (Kroenke Group) & Ann Walton Kroenke (Walmart) With just two of his ranches (in MT and WY) totaling 664,000 acres (not including public grazing allotments), Kroenke is one of the ten top land owners in the U.S. In 2014, he ranked #89 on Forbes list of the 400 Richest Americans, #247 on its Billionaires list, and #5 on its list of Richest American Sports Team Owners (net worth: $ 5.8 billion). His wife, Ann Walton Kroenke (net worth: $ 5.6 billion), was #261 on Forbes Billionaires list and #11 on its list of America’s Richest Women. Family of Robert Earl Holding (Sinclair Oil and hotels) Forbes ranks the family #87 on its 2014 list of America’s Richest Families (net worth: $ 2.7 billion). With 400,000 acres of land, the family is the 19th largest private land owner in the US, according to the 2014 Land Report 100. This includes land that Forbes reported “may be the largest ranching operation in the Rocky Mountains.” Public grazing leases are associated with some of the family’s WY and possibly MT holdings, according to Jon Marvel, founder of Western Watersheds. Ted Turner He's the second largest U.S. land owner (2 million acres in 6 states), is estimated to hold grazing leases in MT and NM (estimated at as much as 300,000 acres), and owns the world's largest bison herd. Forbes ranked him #296 on its 2014 list of the 400 Richest Americans and #818 on its global Billionaires list (net worth: $ 2.2 billion). This article was originally published on The Daily Pitchfork. http://www.alternet.org/economy/exposing-americas-billionaire-welfare-ranchers
My father had a 300 acre dairy farm..60 milk cows, 30-40 stock cows...fed by our own pastures and crops..manageable. The local farmers were sickened by corporate ranches that starting buying farms left and right and mismanaging cattle. Turns the pastures into mud pits and makes cows sick for the most part. I knew Ted Turner was part of that movement.
The author of this article, Vickery Eckhoff, is well known for publishing stories that have been spoon-fed to her by PETA, a radical and untrustworthy special interest group with an anti-meat eating agenda.
I'm not interested in her personal life at all...it's a good article that makes valid points if you read it objectively. I grew up in cattle land and small farmers suffered from the invasion of the corporate cowboy....our meat locker was filled year round without overgrazing or overcrowded livestock. You don't need 2million acres in 6 states to run a cattle operation, nor do you need to invade a wildlife refuge to feed them. I don't follow PETA or any special interest groups but information is information. I'm sure a lot of people I disagree with actually write useful articles and are capable of research....wouldn't assume it was spoon fed to them by anyone
Just read her article on the eradication of the wild horse population...this has been an agenda she's campaigned against for years..I agree with the article I read by her..it's just one article but she made some very valid points...and I'm not a vegetarian. To disagree with her agenda is one thing...but to call her work untrustworthy just says to me...you disagree with her stance which is a choice I respect. To discount her for her lifestyle or choices is another issue.
I never said there wasn’t any truth to her article, nor did I say there was not a problem. This article only tells one slanted side of the story with a huge blind spot. She has an agenda. Disclaimer, I am NOT A RANCHER. I consider myself a conservationist. First, I have spent a lot of time in many different areas with cattle that where free range grazing. I have never seen any damage caused by the cattle, long or short term, that went beyond what elk will do. I have helped several ranchers with information on the where about of their lost cattle. Some cattle where stuck down in deep remote canyons, others had bears and other predators feeding on the carcasses of their calves. As far as the government paying ranchers for cattle that have been killed by predators, yes it happens. However, paying for predator killed cattle and sheep was the idea of an anti-hunting special interest group. In the past, hunting was the best tool to keep predator populations in balance with nature. The result of stopping some of the hunting is an overpopulation of predators, with not enough natural food for them to live on. The populations of some predator species, such as the wolves, are now 4 times or more than what the biologist planned on to create a balanced ecosystem. With so many more predators than nature can support, they now are forced to eat cattle, sheep, pet dogs and cats. Now the special interest groups that proposed the payments to the ranchers for cattle proven to be killed by predators to stop hunting, now want to stop the payments to ranchers to stop free range cattle feeding. It is all one big anti campaign made by special interest groups. The same special interest groups that are responsible for causing much of the damage to our ecosystem due to their legal filings.
Predators are going to eat cattle, sheep and pets....but it's not like pets aren't eating wildlife either. Example...New Zealand used to be the only place on the planet with land birds of enormous size and also small land birds....The Scottish introduced the cat and wiped out most of the native land bird species...not exactly balancing nature. Humans have forced wild animals to have a severely reduced hunting territory....cattle...we've got in spades...maybe in the high country you don't see the effect of it but I've seen ranching abuse first hand...and I hunted coyote as a kid with my father and brothers for bounty..5 bucks for a pair of coyote ears. I read an article last year about the increased wolf population in your neck of the woods and they were discussing culling wolves again or relocating a portion of them. Cattle are not an endangered species and actually do harm the landscape...consume a ton of grain to produce a few hundred pounds of meat...in my view and the view of many farmers I grew up around...animal husbandry requires responsible management...personally, I'd rather have the elk and buffalo able to compete with cattle for balance
Elk and deer are related to cattle, sheep and buffalo, they are all “Ruminant Animals”. Instead of one compartment to their stomach like us humans have, ruminant animals have four compartments. They all feed similarly, and their feeding causes about the same amount of damage to the environment based on their size. Ruminant animals do not completely chew the grass or vegetation they eat. The partially chewed grass goes into the large rumen where it is stored and broken down into balls of “cud”. When the animal has eaten its fill it will rest and “chew its cud”. The cud is then swallowed once again where it will pass into the next three compartments—the reticulum, the omasum and the true stomach, the abomasum. Many of the plants that grow on earth cannot be used directly by humans as food. Over 50 percent of the energy in cereal crops that are grown for food is inedible to humans. Ruminant animals have the ability to convert these plants and residues into high quality protein in the form of meat and milk. Saying cattle are responsible for causing more damage to the environment than elk is a huge myth. On leased public lands, the number of acres for each free range cow is strictly enforced. I believe one of the reasons Bundy was in trouble was he was grazing more cattle than his permit allowed, and he was fined.
couldn't disagree more...but I think you're example is a different demographic than mine. There are not huge herds of elk throughout the plains...there are huge herds of cattle. Elk herds in my view, could be more easily managaged than cattle herds. I know about the digestive tracts of cattle and the usage of cereal crops as well. I may also draw some attention to quality protein..beef has more uric acid content than most red meats....it's not as healthy as wild game ..and I'm not against beef that's produced in a sustainable way. Any animal or fish or foul that's overcrowded to increase production is less likely to be a healthy protein producer.
Both elk and cattle tend to be herd animals. Large herds of either can cause some “short term damage”. I have been in many areas where herds of both elk and free range cattle feed within sight of each other with no conflicts or competition. Keep in mind, due to the very large increase in the population of predators (wolves, bears & cougars) compared to 25 years ago. The populations of elk, deer and moose have sharply declined. I know of areas that the moose re-introduction program was working very well. But now that the wolves are overpopulated, the moose populations are endangered. I have not seen a moose in several years, and they used to come within sight of my Idaho cave. (now we see wolves). The elk population in Yellowstone is well below 50% of what it was before the re-introduction of the wolves. My point is, between the government agencies strictly regulating the number of cattle that can graze on public lands, and the yuuuuge decrease in elk, deer and moose populations, there is no conflict or competition between them. Glad you brought up how much healthy free range cattle beef is compared to stock yard cattle. I was hoping to get that info into this conversation somehow.
Good thread, Maris. Feels like a breath of fresh country air. A lot of us aren't writing, but we're lurking and learning. Oldfisherman and Riverman, should billionaire ownership of giant ranches be encouraged? If not, how should regulations change to encourage smaller ranches?
Here's the only Oregon ranch listed in the article, owned by James Barta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehorse_Ranch
I do not believe the size of a ranch has anything to do with the problem. The problem is if there is abuse of the public lands the cattle graze on. Small ranchers can abuse our public grazing lands just as easily, of not more so, than large ranchers. I have not seen abuse, Riverman claims he has (I believe him). I support free enterprise. Every company and organization needs to take in more revenues than they spend. To me, “profit” is not a dirty word as it is to some people. Profit is necessity for our country to survive and grow. Even non-profit organizations need to take in more money than they spend or they are gone. Both large and small ranchers need to make a profit to survive. I wish both small and large ranchers only the best, and hope they continue to make a profit and survive. We need both types of ranches.
I have no problem with wealthy folks investing in ranches as long as they're sustainable, not squeezing out the small farmer and well managed...when overcrowded, overgrazed practices are used, I'm against it. I do not want cattle foraging the state or national forests or wildlife preserves that interfere with the natural inhabitants of the forest...and I do not want them pissing in the watersheds in the BLM land behind my property. We've seen the effects of Mad Cow and I've seen really poorly managed cattle operations. People sometimes think of Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Durant in Lonesome Dove herding cattle from Montana to Texas and identify with it but imagine they were herding pigs...thousands of them. Pigs destroy natural habitat faster than most meat producing livestock...sheep overgraze...interesting correlation if you check out the range wars between sheep and cattle ranchers in history. I prefer herds of Buffalo and Elk surviving in the woods and plains. One of the reasons the rainforest in Brazil is disappearing is clear cut logging for cattle production. We've squeezed our native flora and fauna into areas that are difficult to cultivate already...#ourindigenouswildlifematters...if you lived in Africa..how'd you feel if the Wildebeast or Ibak were unable to compete with free range cattle? We have a limited sanctuary for our watersheds.
See the photo I've attached in an earlier post...fly ridden mud pits where often helicopters drop feed on the herd and they truck in water to keep them alive. Another thing is the Wild Mustang being irradicated to make more room for even larger cattle operations. My father and the neighboring farmers when I was a child called these guys..New Yorkers...a common saying was don't sell anything to the New Yorkers, they'll fuck up the land....make some money and leave
I'll clarify that my dislike of meat factory farms has nothing to do with sensible ranching done by folks who give a shit about the effect of their herds and impact on the community
