State Land Board mulls grazing fee increase to boost school trust

2011-07-20T00:00:00Z State Land Board mulls grazing fee increase to boost school trustThe Associated Press The Associated Press
July 20, 2011 12:00 am  • 

The Montana Land Board decided Monday to consider increasing grazing fees charged ranchers who run cattle on state land by perhaps twice as much. 

A study commissioned by the board found the state is charging far less for grazing fees than private landowners. The board, run by the five statewide elected officials from the governor on down, is charged with managing state land and raising money for the school trust. 

The land board gave the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation the go-ahead to begin a multi-month review of the issue, which the agency said has not been done in about 10 years. The agency will come back with a formal proposal late in the year after holding public hearings. 

The rates would affect about 4 million acres of state land — and nearly 5,000 ranchers who lease the land from the state. Agency director Mary Sexton said that every $1 increase in the average $6.50 price per animal unit currently charged would raise an extra $1 million a year for state coffers. 

A proposal from the study said the state could double its current rate and still only be charging about 70 percent of the market rate. Such an increase would raise about $6 million for the state, the agency said. 

Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who heads the land board, said the state could currently be criticized for charging too little and failing to get sufficient income from taxpayer-owned land. The governor said he personally owns land that he leases for cattle grazing, and pointed out he charges far more than the state does. 

“We have a fiduciary responsibility to the school children of Montana to maximize the return on these assets,” Schwietzer said of the Land Board. 

The Montana Stockgrowers Association opposes the increase. The group argues it is not fair to compare state land rates with private rates because there are different obligations for lessees. 

“During the legislative session earlier in the year, both the governor and the legislative leadership made it clear they didn’t want to raise taxes or fees on anyone in these uncertain economic times. This proposal doesn’t fit with that position,” Jay Bodner, of the stockgrowers, said in a release.

Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(2) Comments

  1. steeline
    Report Abuse
    steeline - July 20, 2011 1:35 pm
    Fair and competitive lease value is one thing. There are other issues that need to be addressed. The public land, State or Federal owned, that is leased to private operations are subject to abuses, such as over grazing, weed infestation, distruction of raparian areas along streams and denial of public access. The grazing lease fee for State lands are low and should be adjusted. There should be stricter management by the State to identify damages to the land. When that occurs the leases should be suspended until all damages are repared by the leasee. Maybe putting some of the leases up for bid would increase the revenue for the kids schools. We have to protect our lands.
  2. hatrack71
    Report Abuse
    hatrack71 - July 20, 2011 7:53 am
    That's nice. Steak prices will be expensive now.

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters. If you receive an error after submitting a comment, please contact us.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps:

    1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

    2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

    3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

    4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

    5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

    6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

    7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

    8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

    9. Don't write a novel. If your comment is longer than the article you're commenting on, you might want to cut it down a bit. Lengthy comments will likely be removed.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick