U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–370 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

PRESERVING OPPORTUNITIES FOR GRAZING ON 

FEDERAL LAND 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE INTERIOR, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 24, 2018 

Serial No. 115–93 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Michael Cloud, Texas 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Jimmy Gomez, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

CHRISTEN HARSHA, Counsel 

KILEY BIDELMAN, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Greg Gianforte, Montana, Chairman 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona, Vice Chair 

Dennis Ross, Florida 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Michael Cloud, Texas 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Jimmy Gomez, California 

(Vacancy) 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 24, 2018 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. John Helle, Owner Partner, Helle Livestock 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Mr. Scott Horngren, Staff Attorney & Adjunct Professor, Western Resources 

Legal Center 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Mr. Shannon Wheeler, Chairman, Nez Perce Tribe 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24 

Mr. Dave Eliason, President, Public Lands Council 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 29 

APPENDIX 

Statement for the Record from the Wild Sheep Foundation, submitted by 

Chairman Gianforte. ............................................................................................ 44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

PRESERVING OPPORTUNITIES FOR GRAZING 

ON FEDERAL LAND 

Tuesday, July 24, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, ENERGY, AND

ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:43 p.m., in Room 

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Gianforte [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gianforte, Palmer, Comer, and 

Plaskett. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. The Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and 

Environment will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

I would like to thank everyone for being here and especially 

thank you for your patience in us having to run off and do some 

other business. But we are here, and I appreciate your travels. I 

will begin with my opening statement. 

Good afternoon. This Subcommittee on Interior, Energy, and Environment is meeting today to examine difficulties ranchers with 

Federal grazing permits face, as well as to discuss recommendations to improve cooperation between permittees and our Federal 

land management agencies. 

Access to public lands is critical for many people, including 

hikers, hunters, and fishermen. Today, though, we’re here to specifically discuss livestock grazing on Federal land. As the Western 

Governors’ Association says, ranchers are, quote, ‘‘an important 

contributor to the customs, cultures, and rural economies of the 

West,’’ end quote. 

The Public Lands Council estimates that grazing on Federal land contributes at least $1.5 billion to the economy and supports thousands of jobs. In fiscal year 2017, livestock producers held almost 

18,000 grazing permits on BLM land and nearly 6,000 active permits on Forest Service land. These operators rely on access to public lands to produce food, wool, and even clothing, as my friend 

John Helle will be able to discuss later in his testimony. Those are 

a few of the obvious benefits of responsible utilization of Federal 

land. 

Both the BLM and Forest Service are charged with managing 

Federal land for multiple use and sustained yield. Ranching, a 

business that necessitates careful stewardship of natural resources, 

complements a number of those uses. Ranchers partner with the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

State’s wildlife agencies, sportsman’s organizations, and conservation groups to facilitate multiple use. Identifying opportunities to 

promote cooperation on Federal land will be an important part of 

our discussion today. 

To add additional perspective on this issue, without objection, I 

will enter a statement from Gray Thornton, President and CEO of 

the Wild Sheep Foundation, into the hearing record. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. I would like to thank Mr. Thornton for being 

here today in the audience and the Wild Sheep Foundation for 

their contribution to our conversation today. 

Unfortunately, one of the greatest challenges to grazing is special-interest litigation and the abuse of some of our core Federal 

environmental protection statutes. While Congress enacted these 

laws with good intentions, groups that are determined to drive 

ranchers off the Federal land have transformed them into tools to 

push certain uses over others. This is not what Congress intended, 

and it certainly does not support the agencies’ multiple-use missions. 

Seeking workable solutions and finding common ground becomes 

that much more difficult when some special interests fundamentally oppose grazing and routinely turn to litigation instead of collaboration. Not only does the constant threat of litigation distract 

the BLM and Forest Service from their important missions and 

drain Federal resources, but it results in land-management decisions driven by fear and apprehension of the next wave of lawsuits. 

This is no way to manage our range lands. 

I know our witnesses today will help further the conversation 

about preserving opportunities for grazing while ensuring adequate 

protection of our range land and, above all, true multiple-use management. 

Part of the solution is to ensure our Federal grazing permit programs are fair, provide for meaningful permittee participation, and 

minimize uncertainty and delays. Producers struggle to defend 

their operations from seemingly endless attacks by well-funded activist organizations who enjoy incentives to litigate under current 

law. 

If the BLM and Forest Service continue to operate at the mercy 

of special-interest litigation and ranchers continue to face unnecessary livestock reductions, many ranchers may decide that they can 

no longer afford to graze on Federal land and will be forced to walk 

away from their business. This would have devastating consequences for local economies and our ranching families who hope 

to pass their way of life on to the next generation. 

The bottom line is that we need range land management that 

utilize sound science, provides for flexibility, and incorporates permittee input. Livestock producers whose livelihoods depend on understanding the local ecosystem develop specialized knowledge 

through years and sometimes decades of on-the-ground experience, 

and cutting them out of the land management process wastes 

unique expertise and jeopardizes range land health. BLM and Forest Service policies should encourage employees to develop productive working relationships with the producers rather than default 

to restricting access or trying to shield themselves from litigation. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Thank you again to our witnesses for joining us today. I look forward to the hearing and your testimony on such an important 

topic. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Plaskett, for her opening statement. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, all of the witnesses and others who are here, for this hearing 

this afternoon. 

The Federal Government owns approximately 640 million acres 

of land in the United States. Most of that land is located in the 

Western States, but not all of it. In my own district, we have the 

beautifully preserved Virgin Islands National Park, which testifies 

to the important role the Federal Government can play in managing lands for the enjoyment of all people of this great country. 

Today, we will hear from local ranchers, as well as local producers, who benefit from permits to graze livestock on Federal 

lands. I am aware and sensitive to the generational land rights of 

those individuals and the need for the Federal Government to balance the interests of grazing with the rights of individuals to be 

able to go on to lands which they have had deeded to them for 

many years. I understand this. 

This is something that we are fighting and is a conflict in the 

Virgin Islands as well with those individuals who feel that the Federal lands are coming to encroach and become Big Brother on the 

land that they have used for many generations for their own livelihood. Those viewpoints are important, but there are also viewpoints that I am glad that this committee is going to hear from 

today as well. 

We will also hear the viewpoint of the Nez Perce Tribe, whose 

members are throughout the Western United States in central 

Idaho, parts of Washington, Oregon, and Montana. Chairman 

Wheeler, who is here, has stated in his written testimony that the 

bighorn sheep are culturally critical to that Tribe’s existence. The 

Tribe has hunted the bighorn sheep to craft culturally significant 

items like bighorn bows and have used this wild sheep for food and 

for clothing. They are so significant to the Tribe that the Tribe’s 

cultural right to hunt and use the sheep is protected by treaty. 

The bighorn sheep and the Nez Perce Tribe’s critical relationship 

with this important species and is an example of how Federal Government agencies must balance commercial interests with cultural 

and environmental interests and treaty obligations when they manage Federal lands. This subcommittee has to balance the needs of 

many interests and must show the same concern for cultural and 

environmental interests and treaty obligations as we have for the 

commercial interests. 

I hope that our goal with this hearing regarding grazing on 

Western lands is the same, to support and advance the appropriate 

and sustainable use of Federal lands. I echo the chairman’s sentiment that we must bring good science, good economics, sensitivity 

to cultural needs, as well as historic importance of the lands. As 

Chairman Wheeler has stated, and I quote, ‘‘The Nez Perce Tribe 

considers recovery of the bighorn sheep population to huntable, 

healthy, and sustainable levels within our homeland and throughout their suitable historic habitat to be a top resource management 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

priority. Our collective actions have the power to help or hinder 

this recovery.’’ 

Indeed, I understand this and share that sentiment for all of our 

testifiers today. A focus on commercial interests to the exclusion of 

cultural and environmental equities and treaty obligations and vice 

versa will hinder the recovery not only of bighorn sheep but the 

way of life for those that live in the West. I urge this subcommittee 

to consider Chairman Wheeler’s testimony by the ways that the 

Federal Government can protect the environment and tribal culture as we examine different opportunities for grazing on public 

land. 

And I agree that we must collectively and be collaborative in that 

effort. While an attorney, I don’t prefer litigation and hope that we 

can resolve our differences in a way that is amicable to the interests of all. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. And thank you. 

I am pleased to introduce our witnesses at this time. Mr. John 

Helle, owner/partner of Helle Livestock; Mr. Scott Horngren, staff 

attorney and adjunct professor at Western Resources Legal Center; 

Chairman Shannon Wheeler, Chairman of the Nez Perce Tribe; 

and Mr. Dave Eliason, president of the Public Lands Council. 

Welcome to all of you. I know you traveled to be here, and we 

appreciate your testimony, look forward to your testimony today. 

Pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in 

before you testify. If you would, please stand and raise your right 

hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Please, you may now be seated. 

In order to allow time for our discussion today, we are going to 

ask that you each limit your comments to five minutes. There is 

a set of lights and things that will keep you on time there. As a 

reminder, that clock will tick down. It turns yellow when you have 

30 seconds left and red when your time is up, and then we will 

move to our time of questioning. Also remember the microphones 

do not work automatically; you have to turn them on before you 

speak. 

So with that, we will start with Mr. Helle. You have five minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HELLE 

Mr. HELLE. Chairman Gianforte, Ranking Member Plaskett, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

visit with you today. I am John Helle, a third-generation sheep and 

wool producer from Dillon, Montana. I am here today to represent 

the Nation’s 88,000 sheep producers and those that spend some 

time on Federal grazing lands. 

Over the years, we have expanded and diversified our ranching 

operation, preserving open space and adding economic value to our 

nation. Through the brand Duckworth, we have taken Helle wool 

from sheep to shelf all in the United States. We’re proud to be able 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

to convert a renewable resource into food and fiber while 

stewarding the land we run on. 

Since I was a kid, we’ve lost over 100,000 sheep in southwest 

Montana because of the effects of misguided policy enforcement. In 

fact, Dillon was at one point the world’s largest shipping point for 

wool. Livestock grazing promotes new growth and enhances habitat 

for wildlife species like sage grouse. Our private land serves as the 

commensurate base for our Federal grazing permits, thus benefiting the public with a quasi-conservation easement on that wellstewarded land. 

However, family ranching faces a number of challenges that 

threaten the future of range land management West-wide. We have 

personally witnessed abuse of Federal law as our Forest Service allotments were targeted for legal action. Preceding the introduction 

of bighorn sheep into southwest Montana, our State wildlife agency 

and local interest, including us landowners, came together outlining a workable plan forward. Our ranch, along with others —— 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Excuse me, Mr. Helle, if you could just straighten your microphone, we will get a better recording —— 

Mr. HELLE. Okay. 

Mr. GIANFORTE.—and we can all hear you. Thank you. 

Mr. HELLE. Sorry. Our ranch, along with others, entered into an 

MOU detailing the obligation to preserve domestic grazing and 

support wildlife populations. Under State statute, the Department 

assured ranchers such as myself that the introduction of this species into areas where domestic livestock were present would not result in any harm to our ranching operation. This promise has proven to be false. 

In the end, our reward for working cooperatively with these 

agencies to introduce a bighorn sheep herd was three years of costly litigation. The consequence of losing here could be the loss of 

permits we’ve grazed for generations. 

Earlier this month, my attorney had to appear before a threejudge panel in the Ninth Circuit over an appeal on the fourth denial from the district court of an injunction on my grazing permit. 

This case arose from the same fact pattern earlier referenced on 

bighorn sheep habitat under the Forest Management Plan. Laws 

like EAJA encourage the propagation of litigation and excess legal 

filings. Thankfully, the Ninth Circuit denied their attempt, but my 

legal fees continue to accrue. 

Using this flawed logic and claims that only domestic sheep carry 

specified—specific pathogens, groups have pushed for effective separation between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. This separation 

formed the basis for grazing policies like BLM’s 1730 and species 

viability claims under the National Forest Management Act. These 

recommendations were developed without input from the domestic 

sheep industry or the U.S. Department of Agriculture Ag Research 

Service. 

Thanks to USDA research, we now know the pathogen blamed 

for these deaths in wildlife is found not only in domestic sheep but 

other wildlife species as well and are endemic in bighorn herds 

across our State. The presence of these pathogens is not indicative 

of overall bighorn herds’ health, yet this continues to be the basis 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

for closing active sheep allotments across the West and reducing 

sheep AUMs. 

Using these tactics to threat—and threats of litigation based on 

flaws Forest Service and BLM policy, artificial environmental 

groups offer Federal sheep allotment holders so-called buy-out 

agreements and then tout acceptance as a voluntary action. Citing 

threats of litigation and loss of livelihood to compel a sale is not 

voluntary; it’s extortive. Due to these practices, it is impossible to 

accurately assess the number of AUMs our industry has lost. 

However, together with our ranching neighbors and conservation 

groups, we’ve formed an alliance to find shared values and common 

goals. Stewardship on the ranches in our area have demonstrated 

that we hold the key to successfully achieving the goals of the conservation community by protecting open space and wildlife corridors. Range science and land management is not about setting 

and adhering to strict standards. These tactics are ineffective unless we start thinking on a landscape scale. 

Unfortunately, land stewardship is not driving management. 

Rather, decisions are based on the fear of litigation. Methods that 

promote stewardship are the key to preservation of sustainable 

Federal lands management, and wildlife management is a State, 

not a Federal issue. These decisions must be made at the local level 

with input from local stakeholders, and NEPA must be streamlined 

to serve its originally intended purpose without spurring litigation. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Helle follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 31370.001
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 31370.002
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 31370.003
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 31370.004
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 31370.005
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 31370.006
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 31370.007
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 31370.008
15 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Helle. 

At this time I would like to recognize Mr. Horngren for your 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT HORNGREN 

Mr. HORNGREN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Plaskett and members of the committee. I’m Scott 

Horngren, an attorney with the Western Resources Legal Center 

that provides real-world experience for students interested in supporting resources uses such as livestock grazing. We provide this 

practical education at Lewis & Clark Law School in Oregon where 

I’m an adjunct professor. However, my testimony today doesn’t represent the position of the law school. 

I will discuss ways agencies can improve the cooperative working 

relationship with grazing permittees by streamlining the cumbersome agency procedures for renewal of grazing permits and 

eliminating the annual vulnerability of the grazing program to serial litigation. 

But first, I’ll start with a great example of cooperative working 

relationships between grazing permittees and Federal agencies on 

the Nation’s only sheep experiment station. Unfortunately, litigation disrupts that cooperative relationship and halts needed research to improve the health of sheep, both bighorn and domestic, 

and the health of range land. 

One important experiment station project involves how different 

variables affect transmission of pneumonia between domestic and 

bighorn sheep. The Western Watersheds Project, whose goal is to 

halt all public lands grazing, filed numerous lawsuits to halt sheep 

grazing in areas long used for research since 1924. In the most recent lawsuit, the Forest Service argued that, based on a prior settlement with Western Watersheds, grazing could continue and the 

research should be completed. 

But the court disagreed and enjoined grazing and completion of 

the five-year research project, which was in its final year. The 

American Sheep Industry’s Association moved to intervene, given 

the wide application and benefit of the research to sheep producers. 

The court deferred ruling on the motion to intervene until after settlement discussions between Western Watersheds and the Forest 

Service. 

Last month, the Forest Service settled the case. It agreed to stop 

domestic sheep grazing on the allotments until further analysis 

under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, but it 

didn’t include any commitment or deadline to conduct the analysis, 

and it agreed to pay $80,000 in attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs. 

So Western Watersheds halted the very research designed to promote multiple use and inform how range conditions and other factors can influence disease transmission among the domestic and 

bighorn sheep. But there’s no commitment by the Forest Service to 

complete the NEPA analysis. 

Another concern is that the process to renew 10-year grazing permits for ongoing grazing should be straightforward and meaningfully and timely involve the permittees like Mr. Helle. Most grazing 

allotments have been sustainably grazed by ranching families for 

half a century or longer. Congress should enact legislation that alVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:31 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31370.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
16 

lows the Forest Service and BLM to renew grazing permits if the 

range land is in satisfactory condition using a more timely and less 

expensive categorical exclusion under NEPA rather than a lengthy 

and expensive EIS. 

Consultation between agencies about the effect of grazing on species listed under the Endangered Species Act is also disrupting 

grazing and undermines the cooperative relationship between agencies and permittees. Often, the permittee is only given a few days 

before the grazing season begins to review the draft biological opinion, which has been delayed for half a year or longer. Agencies 

should be directed to stop forcing permittees into the Hobson’s 

choice between whether to delay turnout to meaningfully review 

this opinion or instead accept the opinion’s overly restrictive conditions in order to turn the livestock out for the season. And then 

after the ESA consultation is done, the lawsuits come, bringing further delay. 

Finally, once a 10-year permit is renewed, the grazing’s yearly 

grazing instructions that merely confirm the level of livestock use 

for particular pastures based on the annual variation in the forage 

and range conditions are also subject to litigation and should not 

be. The Ninth Circuit held that these annual operating instructions 

or AOIs are the new—are a new final agency action subject to litigation. 

A dissenting judge in that case argued that, quote, ‘‘In pragmatic 

terms, if every AOI for every permit in every allotment every year 

is open to litigation, it is a little difficult to see how the grazing 

program can continue. If the purpose of the program is to feed animals, they need to eat now rather than at the end of some lengthy 

court process. Environmentalists should not have multiple bites at 

the litigation apple. Congress or the agency should clarify that 

these final agency actions do not include the annual instructions in 

the AOIs.’’ 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Horngren follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 31370.009
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 31370.010
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 31370.011
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 31370.012
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 31370.013
22 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Horngren. 

At this time I will recognize Chairman Wheeler for your comments. 

STATEMENT OF SHANNON WHEELER 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and subcommittee 

members. 

[Speaking native language.] 

Mr. WHEELER. My name is Shannon Wheeler. I’m with the Nez 

Perce Tribe. My people, the Nimiipuu or the Nez Perce, have lived 

in what is now central Idaho and parts of Washington, Oregon, and 

Montana for thousands of years. Thousands of us live there today. 

We continue to exercise our sovereign treaty-reserved rights to fish, 

hunt, gather, and pasture our livestock across our broad aboriginal 

territory, which today primarily consists of our Federal public 

lands. These lands are critically important to the Nez Perce people 

as it defines our culture, traditions of thousands of years and is 

memorialized in countless ways, including our treaty of 1855 with 

the United States Government, and that’s 12 Stat. 957 of the—with 

the United States. And the current names of the Nez Perce-Clearwater and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest are a part of that to 

memorialize that. 

The manner in which these lands are managed in vital—are vital 

to the Nez Perce culture. Public land grazing is a complex and controversial topic. Our tribal members continue to exercise their treaty-reserved rights to pasture livestock on public lands within the 

Nez Perce homeland, which at one time was around 17 million 

acres that was our usual and accustomed areas, and we ceded over 

13 million acres of reservation. 

We recognize that livestock grazing, when administered responsibly, can be an appropriate and sustainable use of lands, for us, 

such activity can be an important expression of our history, our 

wealth, and our culture. 

We also understand that in some areas and in some circumstances livestock’s grazing is not appropriate. We have witnessed, as many members of the committee have, cases which livestock grazing has been conducted irresponsibly or in areas where 

the presence of livestock compromises other uses. These areas often 

provide critical habitat for our treat-reserved resources. Therefore, 

rights of the Tribe like the Nez Perce, livestock grazing, when authorized or conducted inappropriately, can compromise the exercise 

of our treaty rights that are—were reserved for us. 

One prime example of this is the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep 

and the conflicts associated with domestic sheep grazing. As in 

many areas across the United States, the Nez Perce homeland once 

supported vast herds of bighorn sheep throughout a network of 

canyonlands and subalpine ridges. These animals were materially 

and culturally critical to the Nez Perce, as was stated before, for 

bows and for the under armor of the day was their hide that we 

used, was flexible and strong and we—being agile with that in that 

time—at that time of—that period. 

So to think about that, that resource itself, the animal itself that 

cannot speak for itself but—it does speak for itself but sometimes 

we don’t listen. The animal, when he starts disappearing and he’s 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
23 

not able to tell you what’s going on with him but we recognize that 

his—the depletion of the herds are—we’re here to speak for that 

animal today, and that’s why I’m here. 

As—and today, these canyonlands and ridges remain in relatively healthy conditions and suitable for bighorn sheep, yet bighorn sheep have been greatly depleted across the vast portions of 

our homeland. Pneumonia caused by pathogens introduced by the 

region by domestic sheep has been identified by most scientists as 

the primary factor contributing to the significant decline and, in 

many cases, extirpation of numerous native bighorn sheep populations in the American West. 

At the time of European settlement in the West, the bighorn 

sheep populations numbered in the tens of thousands. Within our 

homeland, these animals now exist in small isolated populations. 

Pneumonia continues to be the culprit that suppresses these remnant populations. Unfortunately, this situation is common across 

much of the Western U.S., and transmissions of the pneumoniacausing pathogens from domestic to bighorn sheep remains the primary concerns of bighorn sheep managers. The bottom line is bighorn sheep cannot share the range with domestic sheep. 

The Nez Perce Tribe considers recovery of the bighorn sheep populations to huntable, healthy, and sustainable levels within our 

homeland and throughout their suitable historic habit—habitat to 

be a top resource management priority through recent sciencebased research. 

A tool has been developed known as a risk-of-contact model. This 

tool, embraced by the U.S. Forest Service, provides land managers 

with a science-based foundation of evaluating grazing proposals 

and alternatives. The Nez Perce Tribe recommends that this committee encourage Federal agencies to continue using the risk-ofcontact model for evaluating domestic sheep grazing activities within our homeland. 

And some of this is all written testimony even though I’m not 

able to complete this. I would like to say this last and least. Proposals to transfer these public lands to State and private entities 

threaten access to and exercise of treaty-reserved rights that are 

resources on which they depend. The Nez Perce Tribe has been and 

remains categorically opposed to all such proposals. It is my hope 

that the perspective of the original inhabitants of these lands and 

the rights of resources reserved by the treaty with the United 

States are appropriately considered and prioritized. Under article 

VI, clause 3 of the Constitution, the supremacy law where treaties 

are the supreme law of the land and 12 Stat. 957, the treaty with 

the Nez Perce are a piece of that. 

So I thank you all for you time. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 31370.014
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 31370.015
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 31370.016
27 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Yes, Mr.—Chairman Wheeler, your entire testimony will be read into the record, so we’ll have that up there —— 

Mr. WHEELER. Okay. Okay. 

Mr. GIANFORTE.—so thank you for your comments. 

Mr. Eliason? 

STATEMENT OF DAVE ELIASON 

Mr. ELIASON. Thank you, Chairman Gianforte—oh, excuse me. 

Chairman Gianforte, thank you, and Ranking Member Plaskett 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you. It’s a pleasure to be 

here. 

My name is Dave Eliason. I’m a fourth-generation rancher from 

Tremonton, Utah. Currently, I serve as president of the National 

Public Lands. My testimony today is on behalf of 22,000 cattle and 

sheep producers throughout the West who rely on Federal grazing 

permits. 

Like many Western ranch families, mine goes back generations 

on the same land in Box Elder County, Utah. Since 1889, we’ve 

stewarded both our private ground and Federal land mixed in with 

it as if it were our own. Not only does our family rely on these— 

the health of these lands, so does our entire community. Staying 

in business for over 130 years has meant considerable change to 

our family operation. That means changing our herd to keep up 

with the times, acquiring new forage and water in dry years and— 

or implementing value-added programs to market our animals. 

Unfortunately, Federal land management policy has often failed 

to adapt with us. No matter the issue, whether it’s sage grouse, 

feral horses, or bighorn sheep, commonsense decisions are all too 

often set aside. This is out of the proven fear that radical environmental groups will sue to stop easy—even basic conservation practice from moving forward. 

My family has been the target of at least two of these lawsuits. 

Once filed, the agencies hit the brakes and rush to appease the litigants. It’s a sad, predictable pattern, and I wish I could say our 

story was unique, but it’s not. It’s the same story everywhere I 

travel as the president of Public Lands. 

Another favorite weapon of these litigants is the Endangered 

Species Act. In fact, of the 145 active petitions for listing, 46 percent come from three groups: Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and WildEarth Guardians. Ironically, these 

same groups will likely sue to impede recovery, leading to the 

ESA’s poor success rate of only 2 percent. 

Fortunately, solutions are being discussed as we speak. Senator 

Barrasso has introduced legislation based on bipartisan Western 

Governors’ Association ESA policy resolution. PLC strongly supports this. With many solutions held hostage in a legal black hole, 

wildfire and frequent predictable—this is a predictable outcome of 

this pattern. The National Interagency Fire Centers estimates fuel 

treatment costs of the agency as at least $150 an acre. Ranchers 

perform that service at no cost to the taxpayers and everybody 

wins, ranchers, wildlife, sportsmen, and even the resource. Instead 

of embracing this tool, the agencies often reduce AUMs, eliminate 

grazing, and—just to appease the litigants. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 

A prime example of this is the recent Martin fire in Nevada 

which consumed nearly a half a million acres. Ninety-nine percent 

of that greater sage grouse habitat and 82 percent was priority 

habitat. That’s the best of the best. Unfortunately, due to the priority habitat management area designation and despite clear 

science that says grazing is compatible and necessary to conserve 

sage grouse, the area has not been grazed for at least two years. 

The resulting fuel load of over 2 tons per acre led to the devastating fire that could have easily been avoided. 

Responsible management of those resources, rather than the fear 

litigation, should have helped lessen the impact of this fire and 

many more like it. Streamlining NEPA and enhancing the use of 

category exclusion is essential to fixing this broken system, so is 

modernizing the ESA. Enhancing local input and leveraging bootson-the-ground knowledge will dramatically improve outcomes for 

the species and shift the focus away from listing back to recovery 

where it belongs. 

No matter the law, we must eliminate unnecessary opportunities 

for litigation by giving agency personnel the tools they need to use 

common sense and work with the critical—with our critical—with 

the critical partners. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, ranchers stand ready to address the 

most pressing challenges facing our public lands. From conservation of the greater sage grouse to preventing and fighting wildfires, 

ranchers want to be the partners on the ground. Further, Federal 

land managers in the West need ranchers to manage—help manage 

property, so why not let us help you preserving our public lands for 

generations to come? 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Eliason follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 31370.017
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 31370.018
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 31370.019
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 31370.020
33 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you, sir. And thank you to the panel for 

your testimony. 

We will now move to our questions, and I will recognize myself 

for five minutes to start. 

I want to start with this question of compatibility of grazing and 

multiple use. Can they coexist? Mr. Helle and Mr. Eliason, is that 

correct? We have discussed, you know, BLM and Forest Service 

both have as their missions the statement directive for multiple 

use and sustained yield. Can you describe how grazing is conducive 

to multiple use on Federal land? And really try and answer the 

question, can it coexist with other uses? Mr. Helle first. 

Mr. HELLE. Thank you, Mr. Gianforte. Multiple use has been 

demonstrated on our forest for generations. We’ve got excellent 

hunting opportunities. There’s recreation opportunities. And by 

working with conservation groups and—like the Montana chapter 

of Wild Sheep Foundation, we were able to sit down and work out 

ways that now the Gravelly Range has a huntable population of 

bighorn sheep and our domestic sheep on there, but it took, you 

know, grassroots work at the local level and—to build trust within 

these organizations to have that, you know, come through. 

And then when we sign an MOU and that’s a contractual agreement with Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, us, and the Forest Service, 

the land management agencies, to have that not adhered to or that 

trust not there —— 

Mr. GIANFORTE. So having grazing on Federal land does not preclude other uses, including wild sheep populations? 

Mr. HELLE. Correct. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Mr. Eliason? 

Mr. ELIASON. Yes, we’re a great believer in multiple use. I mean, 

we promote—distribute water. We help maintain the resources as 

much as we can. The—it’s been proven many times that sheep, cattle, and wildlife mix and they’re a good combination. The worst 

thing we want is just to try to manage things for a single species. 

The best we can do is multiple use so the whole country can enjoy 

these lands. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Yes. Mr. Helle, just to go back to that for—I am 

really curious about how you have resolved potential conflicts and 

how have you facilitated these discussions to achieve what you 

have done in the Gravellys? 

Mr. HELLE. Well, we’ve formed a strategic alliance in the Ruby 

Valley to get together interests from conservation groups like the 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Wildlife Conservation Society, Nature Conservancy, and us landowners and permittee holders have 

come together to find where we have shared values. And we’ve 

found that we have very similar goals in the end to preserve that 

open space and that—you know, our commensurate-based property, 

the land that we use when we’re not on the forest, is actually a 

huge public benefit that the public is receiving by having us have 

Federal grazing leases. So they’ve realized that that’s the key and 

that’s the network that holds these open spaces and wildlife corridors and all that we enjoy about southwest Montana. 

I’m speaking more because of—you know, but I’m sure that’s 

true, you know, across the country. You know, there’s 130 million 

acres of private lands that are tied to Federal grazing land permitVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:31 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31370.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

holders, so in combining that with the 250 million acres of land 

that we graze on the Federal leases, that’s 400,000 acres of land 

protected by family ranchers who are very good stewards of the 

land. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. So in your experience, various groups, conservation, ag producers can work together and resolve issues at a local 

level? 

Mr. HELLE. Definitely. We find that we have a lot of shared values and a lot of similar goals. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Mr. Horngren, you discussed in your testimony some of the ways which Federal grazing programs are vulnerable to litigation. Does bad-faith special-interest litigation pose 

a threat to multiple use? 

Mr. HORNGREN. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, and as an example, 

one of the plaintiffs in the sheep station case, which is designed to 

get information on this conflict or perceived conflict between domestic and bighorn sheep, Western Watersheds Project over the 

years has filed 170 lawsuits over ranching and other multiple-use 

activities on the Federal lands. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you. I am going to recognize the 

ranking member for her questions, and we will probably do a couple of rounds here. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Good afternoon. I wanted to ask a question. 

In our discussion today, we talked about the Federal—really central to all of this is the Federal Government’s role in managing 

Federal lands. Currently, the Bureau of Land Management and the 

Forest Service play an important role in overseeing grazing. Mr. 

Helle and Mr. Eliason, do you believe that there should be more 

or less Federal regulation and oversight of commercial grazing on 

Federal lands? Who wants to go first? 

Mr. HELLE. Thank you, Ms. Plaskett. Federal oversight, you 

know, is important as those are public lands, but local input on 

local decisions would help manage those lands more appropriately. 

We are the experts that live on those lands and have those grazing 

permits, and sometimes it seems like they try and make decisions 

without our input. But, you know, I think that, you know, grazing 

lands are a dynamic system and they’re very localized and they’re 

different for each region, so offering regulation that is a blanket approach across many States and many different ecosystems may not 

be appropriate for more site-specific decisions that need to be made 

on the ground with the experts that the ranching community and 

the land managers have. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Eliason? 

Mr. ELIASON. Yes, in a simple word, I don’t think we need any 

more rules and regulations. But generally speaking, the ranchers 

and the Forest Service and BLM get along good. Sometimes there 

are conflicts by these litigations, throws kind of a monkey wrench 

into things. But it’s important that we do follow the rules and regulations. We’re a law-abiding people. We’ve been in generations on 

these ranches. We, too—we understand that if we take care of the 

land, the land will take care of us. We—important rules and regulations are necessary in our society, but sometimes we can be overregulated. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

And I agree with Mr. Helle on the fact that we need local input. 

It’s hard to manage things, say, in Washington State, back in Montana or Utah. So local input is very, very important that I think 

that people understand the local needs. Thank you. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Mr.—Chairman Wheeler, the same question to you. Do you believe that there should be more or less Federal regulations and oversight of commercial grazing on Federal 

lands? 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you for the question. I definitely believe 

that the Federal Government has a trust responsibility to the treaty of 1855 with the Nez Perce. The question that you ask for local 

input, I would know that we are on that landscape, so our input 

definitely is valuable to that decision-making process that —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Do you believe that the Tribe should be involved 

in any changes to Federal regulations and policy related to this? 

Mr. WHEELER. The—I think the ruling on it would be that the— 

was reserved for us and the resources that were on that landscape 

is—our biggest concern is that that is our ruling. Our ruling is already in place and our decision has been made for us over 140 

years ago that these animals, this habitat, the fish, that was all reserved in the treaty of 1855, and our people haven’t changed that 

much from that time. And so our input is that responsibility of the 

Federal Government to hold that in trust for us, and I believe that 

our—I guess that what you’re asking then for this piece would be 

that our input is here; it’s now, and that’s what we’re here to do. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And do you think that the Federal Government 

has managed that properly, the interests of the Tribe along with 

the interests of other commercial interests which may appear to be 

at odds with one another? 

Mr. WHEELER. You know, I think that we’ve had a working relationship with the Forest Service, the USDA that, you know, now, 

they’re starting to hear a little more of our concerns of how grazing 

is affecting the landscape out there. For example, if I may give an 

example, for one of our canvas areas where we dig roots out there, 

we don’t only graze out there or hunt but we gather out there. And 

the livestock is going out into that, and there’s no quarantine time 

for these animals before they get out to the range land or out to 

the Forest Service land that, you know, maybe at one time they 

were driven like a cattle drive, but now they’re shipped out there. 

So wherever they were grazing, they’re still packing those seeds of 

noxious weeds out to our—out to these lands where we gather. And 

I think that that aspect of it needs to be observed from a tribal 

standpoint of how that’s reflecting on our resources that are out 

there. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. So Federal grazing permittees are required to have an adjoining base property, and many ranchers operate on a combination of deeded land and then Federal land that 

has a grazing allotment on it. The value of the base property is in 

part depending on grazing access to the adjoining Federal land. 

Therefore, when the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest 

Service reduces AUMs on the grazing allotment, they’re also reducing the value of the deeded land. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

Mr. Eliason, in your written testimony you describe the current 

ranch unit, as you refer to it, with deeded base property and attached Federal grazing permits. Could you please elaborate on how 

the private base property and the Federal grazing allotments are 

related and just how the system works? 

Mr. ELIASON. Sure, I’d be glad to. Generally, most of the ranchers have base property. Usually, they spend—the animals will 

spend their winters on private property, and then in the summertime they’ll go up onto the Federal forest and BLM grounds, so it’s 

really quite a combination. If you were to reduce, say, the grazing 

on the Forest Service, that means that they can’t carry. They have 

no place to go for those cattle. Most of these ranchers are appraised 

by the number of animals that they can carry year round, so if you 

cut the one side, you know, then it reduces the value of the ranch. 

And as you know may know very well that ranchers pay a lot 

of property tax for the counties, and many rural and—rural counties, that’s the tax base. And a lot of counties like in Utah, 98 percent of the land is Federal, so they haven’t got a big tax base, so 

it’s very important these AUMs remain viable. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. So when a ranch that may have been on a deeded property for three or four or six generations, when the AUMs 

on the adjoining Federal land are diminished in some way, it actually reduces the property value of the underlying deeded land, is 

that correct? 

Mr. ELIASON. Absolutely. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Yes. Just to a follow-on, so just to be really 

clear, if the AUMs on the Federal lease are diminished, have you 

seen that in practice, and what is the effect on the underlying 

deeded —— 

Mr. ELIASON. Well, generally, the effect is, well, then you got to 

use some of your private property to carry it, so you’ve got to have 

a lot less carrying capacity. So your value is less, your income is 

less, and sometimes if it cuts too much, the ranch is no longer viable. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Mr. Helle, how long has your family 

ranched sheep in the area where you currently do so? 

Mr. HELLE. My family immigrated from Austria into the—right 

after the turn of the century and started into livestock grazing before there was even a forest. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. The turn of the last century? 

Mr. HELLE. Yes. And —— 

Mr. GIANFORTE. So —— 

Mr. HELLE.—you know, over 100 years. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. And if you were no longer able to graze 

your sheep on the Federal land—on the neighboring Federal allotments, how would that affect the value of your ranch and your operation? 

Mr. HELLE. Well, that’s an interesting thing because I live in 

southwest Montana, and the—you know, the agricultural value of 

our operation would be greatly reduced. It would become to the 

point where my family could not make a viable living on the operation with it were it not for our Federal grazing permits. So that 

would put an undue, you know, risk of our private lands becoming 

necessarily, you know, open to the market for subdivision or trophy 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

ranches or some of these other things that are not necessarily conducive to what we value in southwest Montana as far as protecting 

that open space and those wildlife corridors and all that we enjoy 

about that. 

So, you know, I’d like to say that it kind of goes both directions. 

The Federal grazing leases, yes, they give us the agricultural opportunity to make our ranches more valuable and keep us in agriculture, so that’s a public benefit that the public receives by, you 

know, almost a semi-conservation easement of those private lands 

that are intermingled within the public lands. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. And as I understand it, because the regulations 

require adjacent base property, these grazing allotments typically 

transfer with the deed of the home ranch. Is that —— 

Mr. HELLE. Yes, correct. You have to—you know, there’s some 

laws and regulations around the transfer, but you can either sell 

the base property or the livestock in certain instances that are connected to that permit. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. And the—ultimately, the price that someone 

might pay for that home place is in part affected by what grazing 

allotments are available, and diminishing the AUMs on the Federal 

land diminishes the value of the home place. 

Mr. HELLE. Correct. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Yes, okay. 

Mr. HELLE. On an agricultural basis. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Yes. Thank you very much. And I’ll recognize 

the ranking member for her questions. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. Mr. Wheeler, you were talking about 

the effect that the comingling has on the bighorn sheep. Can you 

give us some more examples of how commercial sheep grazing on 

Federal lands have affected the population? 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you for the question. You know, looking at 

the sheep themselves or the bighorn sheep, you know, the outdoor 

industry, you know, if you talk numbers there, $850-billion-a-year 

economic driver, and that supports over 7.5 million jobs in this 

country, but, you know, the—when they start—these boundaries 

start coming into this habitat, this suitable habitat, that—for the 

bighorn sheep, and when they comingle, then the reduction of the 

herds in, say, the Hells Canyon area has been reduced and, you 

know, we have jet boat excursions. And every one of those—I 

couldn’t say maybe the majority of those trips that go up the Hells 

Canyon up the Snake River all have bighorn sheep on their advertisements. I don’t believe they have domestic sheep, but they do 

have the bighorn sheep going up there, and those are being reduced. 

And just the importance of the bighorn sheep as far as the 

petroglyphs that are thousands and thousands of years old, our 

past tribal members have depicted bighorn sheep on there, and, 

you know, the book Yellow Wolf: His Own Story, he talks about the 

bighorn sheep and being able to hunt those. 

And, you know, I just think that, you know, when these boundaries are set, you know, we’re not against grazing, you know, on 

Federal lands, but we are against when they’re affecting the habitat of wildlife that is reserved by us and our resource and —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

Ms. PLASKETT. Do you know if there are other indigenous cultures who are similarly affected as yours, maybe not with bighorn 

sheep but with others in Federal grazing or Federal land areas? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, there’s our sister tribes, the Umatilla Tribe, 

the Yakama Nation, the Warm Springs Tribe, the Upper Snake 

River Tribes. There’s the Shoshone-Paiutes, Shoshone-Bannocks, 

the CSKT Tribe all within this area are near us that all have had 

bighorn sheep populations depleted. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And do you know of depletion of other things 

other than bighorn sheep and—or do you know of or any of you 

gentlemen who are testifying know of instances where the cultural 

viability and cultural issues such as—or livelihood of tribes have 

been successfully worked out with commercial grazing or with 

other domestic grazing activity? 

Mr. WHEELER. I can say to one of those is the bison that are— 

have that issue. The moose in our area now have declined. You 

know, there’s probably numerous reasons, but for the—specifically 

to the bighorn sheep is the domestic sheep and the pneumonia and 

the pathogens that are carried by them when they intermingle. So 

the boundaries, I believe, are the important issue with being able 

to come to a—some type of agreement to—you know, like I had 

mentioned, we’re not against grazing but we are against that affecting the suitable habitat of the bighorn sheep. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So your concern is with the increasing grazing 

area or grazing that goes outside of the treaty agreement? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And could you explain to the subcommittee how 

treaty rights could be affected by increasing grazing in Federal 

lands? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, thank you for the question again. So if you 

look back at the reserve rights of a treaty, with us is 12 Stat. 957, 

and in that treaty what the United States there was rights reserved to hunt, to fish, to gather in all usual and accustomed areas. 

And that was part of our sustenance that we could gather our 

foods, and we could also—it was also tied to our sacred economic 

security that we had as far as the value of what this resource 

meant to us as far as trade, trade to other tribes and trade 

throughout the region. A lot of the different materials that were 

traded were secured in that treaty as well, so then the treaty, 

which is—which was in 1855 then was ratified in 1858 or 1859, 

and then the U.S. Constitution, which is article VI, clause 3, which 

is the—I mentioned the supremacy law that treaties are the supreme law of the land that—those rights were reserved in that, 

and if those depletion of those herds and those depletion of those 

resources are affected, then our treaty is affected by the depletion 

of those resources. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Helle, your operation has 

been involved in a number of lawsuits. Do you feel that the fear 

of future litigation is something that hangs over you and other 

ranchers in your area? 

Mr. HELLE. Well, definitely. I worry that other people might be, 

you know, looking at the sheep industry as—and we need people 

to come into the sheep industry, but the risk of these lawsuits 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

hanging over our industry is definitely changing people’s perspective on the ability to increase and expand our industry. The lamb 

industry in America, we import over half of what the domestic consumption is. Wool is critical for our military, and we import a lot 

of wool, too. And we’re seeing, you know, really good prices for wool 

right now. The lamb market is good, so the opportunities in the 

sheep industry are great from an economic perspective. 

But from, you know, the litigation side of things and, you know, 

a lot of the Western domestic sheep production has—you know, has 

been dependent on some public lands grazing, so we’re putting at 

risk a—you know, an infrastructure and everything else that would 

hold that industry together to, you know, draw that in. So —— 

Mr. GIANFORTE. So —— 

Mr. HELLE.—I mean, economically, it looks good, but litigationwise, that —— 

Mr. GIANFORTE. So not knowing when the litigation is coming or 

from which direction really adds uncertainty to your ability to plan 

your business? 

Mr. HELLE. Definitely. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Yes. 

Mr. HELLE. You know, I think that our Federal agencies—land 

management agencies make a lot of decisions based on the fear of 

a litigant coming in —— 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. 

Mr. HELLE.—rather than on sound management. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Eliason, have you heard from other ranchers 

around the country who are concerned about their allotments or 

permits facing litigation? 

Mr. ELIASON. Oh, sure. And I’ve experienced it, too. And a lot of 

times these radical environment groups that file these lawsuits 

really intimidate the local forest and BLM because it brings on so 

much more work and fear there. In 1982 we had a big fire in our— 

one of our allotments. They would come in and reseeded it, and so 

it carried a lot more. So the BLM gave us what they call temporary 

non-renewables. They wouldn’t give us anything permanent, but 

they gave us—but we had fire on these every year. So for 25 years 

we went on being able to use these temporary non-renewables. 

Western Watershed Project, one of these radical environmentalist 

groups, sent a letter to the BLM saying that it was going to sue 

the BLM if they continued to let us run on this temporary non-renewables. We immediately got a cancelation of our temporary nonrenewables. We had to stop it right then. We eventually went to 

court and we was able to get those back, but that’s a lot of time. 

A lot of times the BLM and Service will do things so they don’t 

upset the cart. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. So you had a longer-term grazing allotment 

agreement, and it went to this temporary —— 

Mr. ELIASON. Non-renewable. 

Mr. GIANFORTE.—non-renewable —— 

Mr. ELIASON. Yes. 

Mr. GIANFORTE.—which basically means it’s —— 

Mr. ELIASON. You had to renew them every year. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. It seems like it’s a hand-to-mouth experience 

—— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

Mr. ELIASON. Yes. 

Mr. GIANFORTE.—where you have very little certainty about the 

future. 

Mr. ELIASON. Exactly. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. And it makes it hard to—being a business guy, 

it makes it hard to plan, doesn’t it? 

Mr. ELIASON. Exactly. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Yes. Mr. Horngren, you proposed legislation 

clarifying that, quote, ‘‘annual operating instructions,’’ end quote, 

should not be considered final agency actions. Under the current 

system that allows legal challenges to annual operating instructions, is there potential for agencies to have to litigate similar 

issues repeatedly? 

Mr. HORNGREN. Yes, there is, Mr. Chairman. And that litigation 

can occur on the same forest or spread out among forests throughout the West. For example, right now, the Western Resources Legal 

Center is helping defend, as codefendants, lawsuits against the 

Forest Service on the Fremont-Winema Forest in Oregon. We had 

two of those lawsuits, which recently were completed in the last 

year on the Stanislaus National Forest in California and on BLM 

lands in Arizona. Some of those same issues are brought up again 

and again. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. And how would the changes you propose regarding annual operating instructions benefit both permittees and Federal agencies? 

Mr. HORNGREN. It would make the Federal agency job a lot easier and less expensive, and it’s not trying to do an end run around 

litigation or shut anybody off from litigation. It’s just acknowledging that the big decisions are made in the permit for the 10- 

year period. You get your shot there. Often, you can win; maybe 

you lose. But once that opportunity is done, implementation of that 

decision on a year-to-year basis shouldn’t continually be subject to 

litigation. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. So that would allow all participants to have 

their voice? 

Mr. HORNGREN. Yes. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. It gets sorted out in a collaborative way but then 

gives the ranchers certainty for 10 years before the individual decisions can be challenged? 

Mr. HORNGREN. That’s right. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you. One last question if I could, 

Mr. Horngren. Do you believe that the current grazing permit administration process grants ranchers adequate level of certainty for 

their operation and allows long-term planning? 

Mr. HORNGREN. No. It’s difficult, particularly with the Endangered Species Act and the way that’s set up now about the consultation that I mentioned. And the permit process is very uncertain because you don’t know what another agency, Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service, is going to shove 

down the throat of the Forest Service or BLM in the name of protecting the fish and wildlife. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you. 

Does the ranking member have additional questions? 

Ms. PLASKETT. No. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. I would like to touch on a couple—I’ll recognize myself for one more round of questions, and then we’ll wrap 

up our discussion today. 

A report by the Congressional Research Service based on data 

from the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service states 

that in the fiscal year 2016 out of the 12 million animal unit 

months that could have been authorized for use on BLM land, only 

about 8,700,000 were actually used. In the same year on Forest 

Service land, only 6,800,000 head months were used out of 

8,200,000 that were available that could have been authorized. Mr. 

Eliason, do you believe accounts for the nonuse of millions of animal unit months—what do you believe accounts for these nonuse 

of the animal unit months? 

Mr. ELIASON. Well, there are several reasons. There are a lot of— 

especially certain areas, there’s a lot of what we call vacant allotments, and sometimes they want to transfer them to sheep from 

cattle, to sheep to cattle, or vice versa or they want to make some 

changes. Right now, the real problem is getting the NEPA done on 

those in order to get the—these allotment back into use. Sometimes, some of these allotments, you know, this is a hard record— 

the country—that you don’t want to. But generally, what’s been 

really causing a problem lately is being able to get the NEPA done 

on it. These vacant allotments, one of the big challenges is that’s 

on the bottom list they’re getting the NEPA. And as we know, 

there’s a huge backlog getting NEPA done. And so with the vacant 

allotments, they’re probably not going to get done. I know a lot of 

those allotments are just waiting for the NEPA to get done so they 

can get them back into use. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. So streamlining the NEPA process —— 

Mr. ELIASON. That’s right. 

Mr. GIANFORTE.—would be a benefit? Okay. Could you explain 

the concept of voluntary nonuse for those who may not be familiar 

with the term? 

Mr. ELIASON. Yeah, voluntary nonuse is just—you know, whether 

it’s—you know, maybe it’s a really dry year or, you know, financially hard times come up on it, and so sometimes you have to take 

temporary non-renewables. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. But that’s to be —— 

Mr. ELIASON. Or not—but —— 

Mr. GIANFORTE. To be a good steward of the land? 

Mr. ELIASON. Yes. You know, a lot of times it’s for the benefit 

of the ground, and so we don’t graze it. And at other times, you 

know, like I say, sometimes it’s financial reasons. Usually, on the 

Forest Service they allow you three years. BLM sometimes you can 

go on for a long time. But generally speaking, a lot of times it’s— 

they’re not being used because of the health of the resource. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Yes. Mr. Helle, are you aware of any ranchers 

who have had animal unit months reduced or been threatened with 

a reduction or have you experienced it yourself? 

Mr. HELLE. Thank you, Mr. Gianforte, for that question because 

recently, a—an episode occurred up in our Upper Ruby where there 

was some maintenance done on a project that required some road 

building in that. So it was—it happened that the—it was in a 

roadless area, and when that—Forest found about it, the ranger— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

I guess it was authorized by the recreation person and maybe the 

range conservationist, but when the forest ranger got word from a 

bystander or somebody that saw it, then things were just—kind of 

fell out of place at that point. And then I think they threatened to, 

you know, not let the cattle go into that, and if they would go into 

that area, that they would threaten them with a reduction in their 

AUMs when all that was thought to have been prearranged and 

worked out. 

And it was just a lack of communication I think that had that, 

but that’s what happens when you don’t involve the permittees and 

when you’re making decisions and stuff. So it was unfortunate —— 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. 

Mr. HELLE.—that they were threatened with reductions. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. For Mr. Helle and Mr. Eliason, have you ever 

seen situations where voluntary nonuse has not been voluntary? 

Mr. ELIASON. Yes, a good example of that is the national monuments. When these places are made into national monuments, the 

rules and regulations become so severe and so hard that it’s just 

not worth it. So a lot of times, that’s—that caused the vacant allotment. But a lot of times it’s because of the welfare of the range. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Mr. Helle? 

Mr. HELLE. It’s hard to say because I’ve seen a lot of sheep 

ranchers just go out of business, so I don’t know what the underlying things were or if there was some offer or something. But I 

know in Beaverhead County there was, you know, lots of sheep run 

on forest land, and there’s very few of them now. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Well, I want to thank the witnesses for 

your testimony today. The hearing record will remain open for two 

weeks for any member to submit a written opening statement or 

questions for the record. 

If there’s no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(43) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 31370.021
45 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 31370.022