January, 19 2011, 09:18am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713
Greta Anderson, Western Watersheds Project, (520) 623-1878
Mark Salvo, WildEarth Guardians, (503) 757-4221
Obama Administration Refuses to Reform Public-lands Grazing Fee
Responding to a lawsuit from five conservation groups, the
Obama administration has decided not to increase grazing fees on public
lands to reflect the true costs of such grazing to taxpayers and the
environment. Tuesday's decision by the departments of agriculture and
interior comes five years after the groups' initial request to reform
the federal grazing program that charges artificially low fees for
livestock grazing on public lands.
TUSCON, AZ
Responding to a lawsuit from five conservation groups, the
Obama administration has decided not to increase grazing fees on public
lands to reflect the true costs of such grazing to taxpayers and the
environment. Tuesday's decision by the departments of agriculture and
interior comes five years after the groups' initial request to reform
the federal grazing program that charges artificially low fees for
livestock grazing on public lands. The government's response was
prompted by a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity,
Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, Great Old Broads for
Wilderness and Oregon Natural Desert Association.
Conservation organizations submitted a petition in 2005
asking the government to address the grazing-fee formula and adjust the
fee in order to cover the costs of the federal grazing program, which
costs taxpayers at least $115 million annually, according to a
Government Accountability Office report. Conservationists contend that
Americans lose even more in compromised wildlife habitat, water
quality, scenic views and native vegetation.
"Today's long-awaited answer was a huge disappointment,"
said Greta Anderson, Arizona director for Western Watersheds Project.
"Year after year, we watch as the government gives a sweetheart deal to
public-lands ranchers at the expense of taxpayers and the environment.
We had hoped the Obama administration would do better, but it's
business as usual for the western livestock industry."
"Subsidizing the livestock industry at the cost of
species, ecosystems and the American people is plainly bad public-lands
policy," said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director at the
Center. "The choice to continue that policy is both a disappointment
and a blight on the Obama administration's environmental record."
"Given the massive budget shortfalls our country faces,
we can no longer afford to subsidize a small group of ranchers to graze
public lands at public expense," said Mark Salvo, director of the
Sagebrush Sea Campaign for WildEarth Guardians and one of the primary
authors of the petition. "As long as grazing is permitted on public
lands, it's only fair that public-lands ranchers pay for the cost of
their activity."
Grazing fees have not kept pace with inflation or with
comparable grazing leases on state and private land. The 2010 grazing
fee was just $1.35 per cow per month -- the fourth year in a row that
the fee was set at its lowest legal limit. The 2011 fee will be
announced at the end of January.
The groups will be exploring all options, including
litigation, to address the agencies' unfortunate decision today to take
no action.
A copy of the 2005 fee petition can be found by clicking here.
A copy of the legal complaint against the government can be found here.
A copy of the Department of Agriculture's response can be found here.
A copy of the Department of the Interior's response can be found here.
A copy of the 2005 GAO report can be found by clicking here.
A report assessing the full costs of public-lands livestock grazing can be found here.
Background
Livestock grazing
is one of the most ubiquitous and destructive uses of public land. It
is also a contributing factor to the imperilment of numerous threatened
and endangered species, including the desert tortoise, Mexican spotted owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, Mexican gray wolf, Oregon spotted frog, Chiricahua leopard frog and dozens of other species of mammals, fish, amphibians and springsnails that occur on western public land. Public-lands livestock grazing is also a primary factor contributing to unnaturally severe western wildfires, watershed degradation, soil loss and the spread of invasive plants -- as well as annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to that of 705,342 passenger vehicles.
Grazing fees apply to livestock grazing across 258
million acres of western public land administered by the Forest Service
and Bureau of Land Management -- 81 percent of the land administered by
the two agencies in the 11 western states. There are approximately
23,600 public-lands ranchers, representing about 6 percent of all
livestock producers west of the Mississippi River.
The low federal grazing fee contributes to the adverse
impacts caused by livestock grazing on public lands for two primary
reasons: (1) the below-fair-market-value fee encourages annual grazing
on even the most marginal lands and allows for increased grazing on
other areas; and (2) since a percentage of the funds collected is
required to be used on range mitigation and restoration, the low fee
equates to less funding for environmental mitigation and restoration of
the affected lands.
In its 2005 report, the Government Accountability Office
found that the BLM and Forest Service grazing receipts fail to recover
even 15 percent of administrative costs and are much lower than fees
charged by the other federal agencies, states and private ranchers. The
GAO found that the BLM and Forest Service grazing fee decreased by 40
percent from 1980 to 2004, while grazing fees charged by private
ranchers increased by 78 percent for the same period. To recover
expenditures, the BLM and Forest Service would have had to charge $7.64
and $12.26 per animal unit month, respectively.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
UN Experts Say Those Ordering and Carrying Out US Boat Strikes Should Be 'Prosecuted for Homicide'
“US military attacks on alleged drug traffickers at sea," said two human rights experts, "are grave violations of the right to life and the international law of the sea."
Dec 04, 2025
Two United Nations rights experts warned that in numerous ways in recent weeks, the Trump administration's escalation toward Venezuela has violated international law—most recently when President Donald Trump said he had ordered the South American country's airspace closed following a military buildup in the Caribbean Sea.
But the two officials, independent expert on democratic and international order George Katrougalos and Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism, reserved their strongest condemnation and warning to the US for the administration's repeated bombings of boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific, which have targeted at least 22 boats and killed 83 people since September as the White House has claimed without evidence it is combating drug traffickers.
The strikes, said Katrougalos and Saul, "are grave violations of the right to life and the international law of the sea. Those involved in ordering and carrying out these extrajudicial killings must be investigated and prosecuted for homicide.”
Human rights advocates have warned for months that the strikes are extrajudicial killings. Trump has claimed the US is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels in Venezuela—even though the country is not significantly involved in drug trafficking—but Congress has not authorized any military action in the Caribbean.
Typically, the US has approached drug trafficking in the region as a criminal issue, with the Coast Guard and other agencies intercepting boats suspected of carrying illegal substances, arresting those on board, and ensuring they receive due process in accordance with the Constitution.
The Trump administration instead has bombed the boats, with the first operation on September 2 recently the subject of particular concern due to reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued an order for military officers to "kill everybody" on board a vessel, leading a commander to direct a second "double-tap" strike to kill two survivors of the initial blast.
Hegseth and Trump have sought to shift responsibility for the second strike onto Adm. Frank "Mitch" Bradley, the commander who oversaw the attack under Hegseth's orders. Bradley was scheduled to brief lawmakers Thursday on the incident.
The White House has maintained Bradley had the authority to kill the survivors of the strike and to carry out all the other bombings of boats, even as reporting on the identities of the victims has shown the US has killed civilians including an out-of-work bus driver and a fisherman, and the family of one Colombian man killed in a strike filed a formal complaint accusing Hegseth himself of murder.
The UN experts suggested that everyone involved in ordering the nearly two dozen boat strikes, from Trump and Hegseth to any of the service members who have helped carry out the operations, should be investigated for alleged murder.
After Hegseth defended the September 2 strike earlier this week, Saul emphasized in a social media post that contrary to the defense secretary's rhetoric about how the boat attacks are "protecting" Americans, he is carrying out "state murder of civilians in peacetime, like executing alleged drug traffickers on the streets of New York or DC."
As Common Dreams reported last month, a top military lawyer advised the White House against beginning the boat bombings weeks before the September 2 attack, saying they could expose service members involved in the strikes to legal challenges.
Katrougalos and Saul urged the administration to "refrain from actions that could further aggravate the situation and ensure that any measures taken fully comply with the UN Charter, the Chicago Convention, and relevant rules of customary international law."
They also emphasized that Trump had no authority to declare that Venezuela's airspace was closed last week—an action that many experts feared could portend imminent US strikes in the South American country.
“International law is clear: States have complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above their territory. Any measures that seek to regulate, restrict, or ‘close’ another state’s airspace are in blatant violation of the Chicago Convention,” said the experts. “Unilateral measures that interfere with a state’s territorial domain, including its airspace, risk fully undermining the stability of the region and are seriously undermining Venezuela’s economy."
Saul and Katrougalos further called on the White House not to repeat "the long history of external interventions in Latin America."
“Respect for sovereignty, nonintervention, and the peaceful settlement of disputes," they said, "are essential to preserving international stability and preventing further deterioration of the situation.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Human Rights Group Warns US Gaza Plan Will Impose 'Unlawful Collective Imprisonment' of Palestinians as New Details Emerge
“The design of these proposed cities mirrors the historical model of ghettos,” said the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, which said the US plans to cram 25,000 people into areas smaller than a square kilometer.
Dec 04, 2025
A prominent international human rights organization is warning that the United States' plan for postwar Gaza will impose "unlawful collective imprisonment" on the Palestinian civilians who have survived two years of genocide.
In November, several news outlets reported on the Trump administration's plan to carve Gaza in two: a so-called “green zone” controlled by Israel and a “red zone” controlled by the militant group Hamas.
The US would construct what it called “Alternative Safe Communities” for Palestinians to live in the Israeli-controlled portion of Gaza, which is over half of the territory under the current "ceasefire" agreement.
The New York Times described these communities as "compounds" of 20,000 to 25,000 people, where Israeli officials reportedly argued they should not be allowed to leave.
The initial reporting raised fears that the US and Israel were constructing what would amount to a "concentration camp," where Palestinians would be forced to live in squalid conditions without freedom of movement.
On Wednesday, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor released new details on how Palestinians, currently facing mass displacement from their homes in the portion of the strip not occupied by Israel, would be corralled into the green zone under the US proposal.
The Geneva-based group issued a stark warning about the plan, which it said carried "grave risks, including the effective displacement of Palestinians from their homes and the transformation of large parts of Gaza into closed military zones under the direct control of the Israeli army."
“Entry and exit would be permitted only through security screening, effectively converting these sites into overcrowded detention camps that impose severe restrictions on residents’ freedom of movement and daily life."
Euro-Med's report explains that the transfer of Palestinians would be carried out using "various pressure tactics."
"This is done by creating a coercive environment in the red zone and making access to relative protection and basic services conditional on relocating to designated areas within the green zone, following extensive security screening and vetting," the report says. "This removes any genuine element of consent and places the process squarely within the scope of forced displacement prohibited under international humanitarian law."
It also provides new details on the conditions Palestinians would be subject to once they've arrived: "The plan includes the establishment of 'cities' of prefabricated container homes (caravans) in the green zone, each housing around 25,000 people within an area of no more than one square kilometer and enclosed by walls and checkpoints."
This means these Palestinian cantons would be over three times as densely populated as the Tel Aviv District, the most crowded in Israel, which has about 8,130 people per square kilometer.
"Entry and exit would be permitted only through security screening, effectively converting these sites into overcrowded detention camps that impose severe restrictions on residents’ freedom of movement and daily life," the report continues.
This is not the first proposal to use the promise of safety to lure Palestinians into an enclosed space without the right to leave.
Earlier this year, following US President Donald Trump's call for the people of Palestine to be forcibly removed from the Gaza Strip, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz proposed the creation of a massive “humanitarian city” built on the ruins of Rafah that would be used as part of an “emigration plan” for hundreds of thousands of displaced people.
Under that plan, Palestinians would have been given “security screenings” and once inside would not be allowed to leave. Humanitarian organizations, including those inside Israel, roundly condemned the plan as essentially a “concentration camp.”
Euro-Med said that the design laid out in the new US plan "mirrors the historical model of ghettos, in which colonial and racist regimes confined specific groups to sealed areas surrounded by walls and guard posts, with movement and resources controlled externally, as seen in Europe during World War II and in other colonial contexts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Somebody’s Getting Rich’: Senator Suggests Trump Pardon Spree Is Yet Another Grift
"There's clearly a whole group of people around him that are making millions of dollars, and they're handing out favors to folks in the form of pardons," said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy.
Dec 04, 2025
A Democratic US senator suggested during a television appearance late Wednesday that President Donald Trump's flurry of pardons for fraudsters and other white-collar criminals—from disgraced politicians to former corporate executives—is yet another cash grab concocted by the president's inner circle and lobbyists with ties to the White House.
“My sense is that somebody is getting rich, ultimately,“ Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told MSNBC's Chris Hayes shortly after Trump pardoned a former entertainment venue executive who was indicted by the president's own Justice Department over the summer.
"There is a cabal of administration officials and MAGA-friendly lobbyists that are in league together," Murphy continued. "They all huddle together at these elite restaurants and clubs in Washington, DC, and they likely hatch deals in which, if somebody pays a MAGA-affiliated lobbyist a couple hundred thousand dollars, then maybe you’ll be able to get a pardon.”
"There's clearly a whole group of people around him that are making millions of dollars, and they're handing out favors to folks in the form of pardons in order to make sure that they get their pockets lined," the senator added. "That's just, like, bread and butter corruption."
Watch:
The pardons Trump is handing out are a huge, growing scandal that not enough people are talking about. This is a money making operation - for for Trump, his family, his crypto pals, and the Trump-affiliated lobbyists and grifters who the pardon seekers pay. pic.twitter.com/FwLRyHDMqN
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) December 4, 2025
Since the start of his second term, Trump has used his pardon power to rescue well-connected executives and political allies from accountability, invariably claiming—without evidence—that the Biden administration manufactured the charges.
Many of those pardoned have been accused or convicted of white-collar crimes; "fraud" appears 57 times on the Justice Department page listing the names and offenses of those who have received clemency from the president this year.
Trump's willingness to unthinkingly pardon fraudsters has spawned a lucrative business for lobbyists and consultants linked to the administration. NBC News reported earlier this year that "two people directly familiar with proposals to lobbying firms said they knew of a client’s offer of $5 million to help get a case to Trump."
Changpeng Zhao, the billionaire founder of the cryptocurrency exchange Binance, reportedly had a lobbyist working to secure his pardon, which came in late October.
"I don't know who he is," Trump said when asked about the decision, adding that "a lot of people asked me" to pardon Zhao, who pleaded guilty in 2023 to "failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program."
Trump also made history with what's believed to be the nation's first-ever presidential pardon of a corporation: HDR Global Trading, the owner and operator of crypto exchange BitMEX. The company was sentenced earlier this year to a $100 million fine for violating anti-money laundering laws.
In a report published in September, Murphy detailed how corporate pardons "are happening throughout the federal government, in the form of rescinded orders, dropped cases, and the first-ever presidential pardon for a corporation." The watchdog group Public Citizen estimates that the Trump administration has halted or dropped more than 160 corporate enforcement cases since the start of the president's second term.
"Corporate pardons are just one of the ways that Trump is replacing democracy and rule of law with authoritarian power and rule by personal favor," Murphy wrote in his report. "If we are going to save our democracy, we need to act now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


