the "subsidy" that ranchers supposedly get (this guy claims BLM costs are twice the actual grazing fees received) are in fact mostly going to pay salaries to BLM employees (I will refrain from commenting on the quality of the majority of BLM employees that I have encountered) and NOT to the grazing programs per se. and as well a portion of that income is going out to the counties and states that generated it in the first place (50% in some areas). Maybe it is technically a subsidy - that is debatable - but it isn't a very big one if it is and more than just the rancher in question benefits from it. And don't even think about the subsidies recreation gets compared to what it brings in. (or mining *cough* 1872 *cough*)
2nd, if these leases were such great deals there wouldn't be any available. in 2009 (latest info I could find with a quick search) over 25% of available BLM AUMs were not taken.
land ownership in the west is rarely a simple situation where a ranch is all BLM or all private. Most ranches comprise multiple classifications of ownership. this is because of the way the homestead regulations worked and the way the land distribution to the states went. the best areas (generally with water) were homesteaded and "improved" with homes and other ag infrastructure. Since there were no provisions to acquire the actual amounts of land needed to graze livestock in the arid west (other than the very rare sales of public or state land) most ranchers used the nearby "commons" until the they and the various land use agencies came up with the precursors to the current grazing regulations.
Back east you might be able to graze several cows to an acre (and the rent would be high) in my area the number recommended to start is 80 acres to ONE cow. When the homestead rules were made they were made in the east where 40 or 80 or 160 acres could easily support crops or enough livestock to support a family. Out here 160 acres at 2 or 3 cows is going to support a family for about 10 days, 2 weeks max.
one of the things that really drives me up the wall is these claims that low public land fees are comparable to private leases. well yeah they are comparable in the same way you might compare renting a local 15 year old rent-a-wreck to leasing a Bentley. you get what you pay for. in my area there are always blm leases available. nobody wants them for the most part (unless they are connected/intermingled with better property) because they either have no water or they are inaccessible, have no infrastructure or are just plain shitty grazing country. Yet I get people about once a month looking to lease our private ground. Private leases, at much higher rates are in high demand. there is a simple reason for that. the expensive private leases are actually a better deal.
= new reply since forum marked as read
