By Jeff Burgess © 2002
You've probably heard this growth control argument. It goes like this: The government should help ranchers or else they'll be forced to sell their land and it will be developed in to subdivisions.
It seems to make some sense the first time you hear it. Arizona's former governor Jane Hull referred to it in her first state of the state address. And state Rep. Jake Flake, R-Snowflake, used it to help get the Growing Smarter Open Space Reserve grants program enacted. Like many of the myths propagated by the ranching lobby, however, it's a red herring argument being used to scare the public to preserve the status quo.
In the case of a public lands ranch, the area being grazed is typically made up of thousands of acres of federally owned land, administered by the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. This land, obviously, cannot be privately developed. But a public lands rancher has to own a parcel of land near the grazing allotment they are permitted to use. The ranch's headquarters are usually located on it and the Feds call it the base property. This private land could be developed.
First, however, it has to be marketable as a multi-residential property. Many base properties are too small, or too remote, accessible only by bad roads, with no nearby shopping, no utilities, and lacking a sufficient water supply. Another factor is that most of their owners are emotionally attached to them and will make every effort to keep them, irregardless of their opportunity to graze the surrounding public lands. Besides, most of Arizona's public lands ranchers don't rely on their livestock operations for their household's primary source of income anyway, as the land is generally unsuited for grazing. They can't complain that the long overdue application of longstanding environmental laws to grazing management on public lands is driving them out of business when they weren't really "in business" in the first place.
Even when a base property does have the potential for residential development, the economic rewards for selling or developing it will be there no matter what terms are included in the associated grazing permit. And with the continuing human population growth, the pile of money that could be made is only going to grow. It's probably only a matter of time before most of the more attractive base properties are developed.
I concede, however, that some ranchers will sell or develop their base properties if their federal grazing permits are reduced or canceled. That isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The popular cry about preserving open space is, after all, primarily an aesthetic concern. That's because protecting open space doesn't necessarily equate to wildlife habitat preservation. A ranch base property, for example, is already "developed" in regards to its value as natural wildlife habitat. In many cases, the differences between the land being used as a ranch base or a residential area are minimal to the local wildlife. And while some ranches are well-managed, many base properties have feeding pastures that are denuded and trampled to death. If they were developed as residential areas, the landscaping installed by the new homeowners could actually increase the quantity and quality of local wildlife habitat, especially if native plants are used.
Furthermore, when a ranch base property is converted to residential use, there are no longer any cattle degrading the wildlife habitat on the adjacent federal grazing allotment. Since the average grazing allotment is tens of thousands of acres in size, this improvement can more than offset whatever loss of wildlife habitat that may occur from the conversion of the ranch base property to a residential development. I know more people would be likely to create new environmental problems, like increased traffic, sewage concerns, and roaming cats and dogs. But it's a safe bet that most of the new residents would be interested in seeing the surrounding public lands managed primarily for wildlife, recreation, and watershed health, instead of for cattle grazing.
I'm not saying that helping a public lands rancher keep his operation going is never in the public's interest. There are always exceptions. What I'm saying is that protecting public lands ranching is not a policy that will ensure the preservation of wildlife habitat in the West.
END
Please contact author at for permission to reprint this article.
NOTE: Previous versions of this article were published in the Canyon Echo, and Arizona Wildlife News.