GRAZING MANAGEMENT REFORM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LA.J.\iDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 1602 

TO REFORM THE MANAGEMENT OF GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC RANGE 

LANDS 

H.R. 643 

TO RAISE GRAZING FEES ON PUBLIC LANDS, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

6!h312 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

APRIL 20, 1993 

Serial No. 108-23 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1993 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-041089-4 
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Republican Member 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

American Samoa KEN CALVERT, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califot;nia 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

HOWARD BERMAN, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KlsH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia Ranking Republican Member 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, HawaJi JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KARAN ENGLISH, Ari"ona KEN CALVERT, California 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

RICHARD HEALY, Staff Director 

CHARLES (STAN) SLOSS, Counsel 

TONYA MITCHEM, Staff Assistant 

ALLEN FREEMYER, Republican Counsel on National Parka, Forests and Public Lands 

KURT CHRISTENSEN, Republican Consultant on Public Lands 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held: April 20, 1993 .. .... .... ... .. ........ .. ... .. ... .......... ... ... .. ... .... ....... ... .. ............ 1 

Text of the bills: 

H.R. 1602 ........................................................................................................... 3 

H.R. 643 ............................................................................................................. 15 

TuESDAY, APRIL 20, 1993 

Member statements: 

Bruce Vento ...................................................................................................... . James V. Hansen ............................................................................................. . Robert F. Smith ............................................................................................... . 

*~~'b~~~a~.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Witness statements: . Panel consisting of: 

Hon. Ralph Regula, a U.S. Representative from the State of Ohio 

Hon. Mike Synar, a U.S. Representative from the State of Oklahoma 

Hon. Joe Skeen, a U.S. Representative from the State of New Mexico 

Panel consisting of: 

Michael Penfold, Assistant Director, Land and Renewable Resources, 

Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior .............. .. David G. Unger, Associate Deputy Chief, Forest Service, Department 

of Agriculture, accompanied by Robert Williamson, director of 

Panel ~:~~tfna;:fement ............................................................................... . 

Jack Metzger, chairman, Federal Lands Committee, National Cattlemen's Association, on behalf of National Cattlemen's Association 

and the Public Lands Council ............................................................. .. Barbara Curti, president, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, on behalf 

of the American Farm Bureau Federation ........................................ .. Dr. John M. Fowler, professor of agricultural economics, New Mexico 

State University .................................................................................... . Tom Dou!fherty, western division staff director, National Wildlife 

Federat10n ............................................................................................. . Material submitted for the hearing record: 

"Drought, Del Papa Cited as Board Drains Account," Elko Daily Free 

Press, Elko, Nevada, December 10, 1992, submitted by Chairman 

Vento ............................................................................................................. . Prepared statements of following Members submitted by Mr. Hansen: 

1. Hon. Orrin Hatch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............... . 2. Hon. Conrad Burns, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada ....... .. 3. Hon. Barbara Vucanovich, a U.S. Representative from the State 

ofNevada ........................................................................................... . 4. Hon. Jim Kolbe, a U.S. Representative from the State of Arizona .. . 

APPENDIX 

TuESDAY, APRIL 20, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record: 

Summaries and background, H.R. 643 and H.R. 1602, Grazing Fees and 

1 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

26 

34 

63 

66 

88 

95 

101 

114 

39 

42 

74 

75 

76 

Rangeland Management .................................... ................................. .... ...... 139 

Prepared statement of Hon. Larry LaRocco ....................... ........... ................. 152 

(iii) 
IV 

Letter to Chairman Vento from Bob L. Vice, president, California Farm 

Bureau Federation, Sacramento, CA .......................................................... . Letter to Chairman Vento from Ray M. Housley, Washington representa- tive, Society for Range Management, Falls Church, VA .......................... . Letter to Chairman Vento from Rose Strickland chair, national grazing subcommittee, public lands committee, Sierra Club, and Johanna Wald, 

senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, dated April 26, 

1993 .............................................................................................................. .. 

Page 

154 

156 

158 
H.R. 1602, TO REFORM THE MANAGEMENT OF 

GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC RANGELANDS; 

AND H.R. 648, TO RAISE GRAZING FEES ON 

PUBLIC LANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMmEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDs, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m. in Room 1324 of the Long· worth House Office Buildinf1, the Honorable Bruce Vento, chairman 

of the subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO 

Mr. VENTO. The Subcommittee on Parks and Public Lands will 

come to order. I have a brief opening statement. 

We are meeting today for a hearing on two bills dealing with 

raising fees and other aspects of the management of our western 

rangelands by the BLM and the Forest Service. 

One bill, H.R. 643, was introduced by the gentleman from Okla· 

homa, our friend and colleague, Mr. Synar, who has been persist· 

ent in his efforts to increase and deal with the reforming of the 

grazing fees. It is cosponsored by another gentleman with a long- standing interest in the matter, Congressman Ralph Regula, the 

ranking member on the Interior Subcommittee of the Appropria- tions Committee, both of whom are our lead-off witnesses this 

morning as we engage this issue. 

The other bill, H.R. 1602, a modest effort, was introduced by my- self along with our former committee colleague, Congressman Buddy Darden. Mr. Darden, of course, is not new to the issue on 

which he has been a leader in the House for many years along with 

our colleagues at the witness table. 

Our committee has actively considered the matters addressed by these bills in committee and on the House floor for the last 6 years. 

In fact, in recent years a hearing on grazing fees and range management has become something of a regular event in this subcommittee, which has held legislative oversight or oversight hearings concerning grazing in 1987, 1989, 1991, and again last year. 

Nor is this a new issue for the House, which in the last 2 years has 3 times voted to revise the way in which grazing fees are set 

and to make some of the other changes in law and policy that are 

provided for in the two bills before us today. However, one impor-

(1) 
2 

tant thing has changed this year with the arrival of a new administration. 

Both President Clinton and Secretary Babbitt have indicated an 

interest in revising policy applicable to grazing, as well as other issues of the lands owned by the American people. In fact, the bill 

Mr. Darden and I have introduced includes a provision that would 

specifically authorize the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to 

establish what has been described as an incentive-based fee concept. 

Therefore, while I am looking forward to hearing today the administration's preliminary views, I think that we should recognize 

that this is something that is actively being considered and refined. 

I hope we can work closely with the new administration and more 

fully develop the details as the proposals evolve, and work as well 

with members on the committee, I mi~ht add. 

As we all know, the Clinton Administration earlier proposed pro- visions such as those in the bill before us be included in the committee's portion of the overall reconciliation measure designed to 

meet the requirements of this year's budget resolution. In fact, they 

do appear in the budget documents as submitted. 

However, as the debate ensued on this topic, the administration 

has indicated its understanding of the likelihood that other vehicles 

may have to carry this new grazing policy initiative as well as 

other matters. 

In any event, I believe that 1993 is the time for our committee, 

the Natural Resources Committee, to report to the House proposals 

long overdue, a comprehensive reform of range management either 

as a free-standing bill or as part of a larger measure. 

Today's hearing is intended to be a step in that important process. Certainly there is room for adjustments and refinements in the 

bills as they now stand, including the bill Mr. Darden and I have 

introduced, but it is my intention to seek to have our subcommittee 

and full committee face up to the policy matter and act on the subject and do so in a timely way. 

A copy of the two bills and the background materials are before 

Members. I will, therefore, not describe them further to the Members, but would ask Mr. Hansen or others if they have any brief 

opening comments. 

[Text of the bills, H.R. 1602 and H.R. 643, follows:] 
3 

I 

103DCONGRESS H R 1602 1ST SESSION 

• • 

To refonn the management ot grazing on the public range lands. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 1993 

Mr. VENTO (for himself and Mr .. DARDEN) introduced the following bill; which · 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reform the management of grazing on the public range 

lands. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TlTLJ!: AND FINDINGS. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the 

5 "Public Rangeland Grazing Reform Act of 1993". 

6 (b) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds7 ( 1) the Federal rangelands and riparian areas 

8 under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Man9 agement and the Forest Service in Western States 

10 should be managed in a manner to achieve and sus11 tain a status of healthy native range and riparian 
4 

2 

1 ecosystems and in a manner that will sustain a full 

2 and thriving spectrum of biologically diverse plant 

3 and animal species within such ecosystems; 

4 (2) a substantial amount of Federal rangeland 

5 continues to be in a deteriorated condition; 

6 ( 3) measures taken by the Bureau of Land 

7 Management and the Forest Service to improve the 

8 condition of Federal rangelands have not resulted in 

9 sufficient progress toward the achievement of eco· 

10 logically healthy and biologically diverse range and 

11 riparian ecosystems for these lands; 

12 ( 4) the fee formula established by Executive 

13 Order Numbered 12548 of February 14, 1986, has 

14 resulted in fees that have not returned to the Na15 tion's citizens an adequate return for the privilege of 

16 utilizing affected rangeland for livestock grazing; 

17 and 

18 (5) it is necessary to revise applicable law so as 

19 to improve management of grazing on rangelands in 

20 Western States managed by the Bureau of Land 

21 Management and the Forest Service. 

22 SEC. 2. GRAZING FEES. 

23 (a) FLPl\1A Ac\IENDMENT.-Section 401 of the Fed24 eral Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

25 1751) is amended by repealing subsection (a) and para· 

•DR 1602 Ill . 
5 

3 

1 graph (b)(1), by redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as para2 graph (a)(1), by redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as para3 graph (a)(2), and by adding at the end of the section the 

4 following: 

5 "(b)( 1) Except as provided in subsection (c), the Sec6 retary of Agriculture, with respect to national forest lands 

7 in the 16 contiguous Western States (including national 

8 grasslands) administered by the United States Forest 

9 Service where domestic livestock grazing is permitted 

10 under applicable law, and the Secretary of the Interior 

11 with respect to public domain lands administered by the 

12 Bureau of Land Management where domestic livestock 

13 grazing is permitted under applicable law, shall establish 

14 and implement, beginning with the grazing season which 

15 commences on March 1, 1994, an annual domestic live16 stock grazing fee equal to fair market value. 

17 "(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, the term 

18 'fair market value' is defined as follows: 

Fair Market Value = Appraised Base Value x Forage Value Index 

100 

19 "(B) For the purposes of subparagraph (A)-

20 "(i) the term 'Forage Value Index' means the 

21 Forage Value Index (FVI) computed annually by the 

22 Economic Research Service, United States Depart-

•HR left Ul 
6 

4 

1 ment of Agriculture, and set with the 1991 FVI 

2 equal to 100; and 

3 "(ii) the term 'Appraised Base Value' means 

4 the 1983 Appraisal Value conclusions for mature 

5 cattle and horses (expressed in dollars per head or 

6 pair month), as determined in the 1986 report pre7 pared jointly by the Secretary of Agriculture and the 

8 Secretary of the Interior entitled 'Grazing Fee Re9 view and Evaluation', dated February 1986, on a 

10 westwide basis using the lowest appraised value of 

11 · the pricing areas adjusted for advanced payment 

12 and indexed to 1991. 

13 "(3) Executive Order Numbered 12548, dated Feb14 mary 14, 1986, shall not apply to grazing fees established 

15 pursuant to this Act. 

16 "(c) ALTERNATIVE FEES.-The Secretary concerned 

17 is authorized to implement a program enabling persons 

18 permitted to graze domestic livestock on land described 

19 in subsection (b) to pay grazing fees in an amount less 

20 than would otherwise be required by subsection (b) if such 

21 persons meet requirements established by such Secretary 

22 to improve the condition of affected range and riparian 

23 ecosystems and the biological diversity of such ecosystems. 

24 "(d) CONSOLIDATION OF BO.ARDS.-The grazing ad25 visory boards established pursuant to Secretarial action, 

. •HR.l802 m 
7 

5 

1 notice of which was published in the Federal Register on 

2 May 14, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 17874), are hereby abolished, 

3 and the advisory function exercised by such boards, shall, 

4 after the date of enactment of this subsection, be exercised 

5 only by the appropriate councils established under this 

6 section. 

7 "(e) U.S. SHARE OF RECEIPTS.-Funds appro8 priated pursuant to section 5 of the Public Rangelands 

9 Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1904) or any other 

10 provision of law related to ,disposition of the Federal share 

11 of receipts from fees for grazing on public domain lands 

12 or National Forest lands in the 16 contiguous Western 

13 States shall be used for restoration and enhancement of 

14 fish and wildlife habitat, for restoration and improved 

15 management of riparian areas, and for implementation 

16 and enforcement of applicable land management plans, al17 lotment plans, and regulations regarding the use of such 

18 lands for domestic livestock grazing. Such funds shall be 

19 distributed as the Secretary concerned deems advisable 

20 after consultation and coordination with the advisory 

21 councils established pursuant to section 309 of this Act 

22 and other interested parties.''. 

23 (b) TAYLOR GRAZING ACT AMENDMENT.-Section 

24 10 of the Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315i) is amended 

25 to read as follows: 

•HR 180liiH 
8 

6 

1 "SEC. 10. RECEIPT SHARING. 

2 "(a) PAYMENT TO LOCAL GoVERNMENTS.-From 

3 the moneys received by the United States in return for 

4 the grazing of domestic livestock on public domain lands 

5 and National Forest lands in the 16 contiguous Western 

6 States, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the 

7 units of local government with jurisdiction over the lands 

8 with respect to which such moneys are collected an 

9 amount equal to 12.5 percent of such moneys collected 

10 under section 3 of this Act and 50 percent of such moneys 

11 collected under section 15 of this Act during each fiscal 

12 year. 

13 "(b) UsEs.-Payments made under this subsection 

14 shall be in addition to any payments made to units of local 

15 government under other applicable law. Moneys received 

16 under this section may be used for any governmental pur17 pose, including but not limited to schools and roads, but 

18 may not be expended in support of or opposition to any 

19 legislative proposal pending before Congress prior to its 

20 enactment into law or in connection with any action or 

21 claim in any court or other agency of the United States 

22 or of any State relating to the management of domestic 

23 livestock grazing on public lands or National Forest lands. 

24 "(c) DEFINITION.-For purposes of this section, the 

25 term 'unit of local government' shall have the same defini26 tion as such term has in chapter 69 of title 31 of the Unit-
9 

7 

1 ed States Code (providing for payments for entitlement 

2 land). 

3 "(d) PRoPORTIONS.-If any grazing distriet includes 

4 lands within the jurisdietion of more than one unit of local 

5 government, payments to each such unit shall be in pro6 portion to the percentage of the total area of such grazing 

7 district located within each such unit's jurisdiction.''. 

8 SEC. 3. TERM OF GRAZING PERMITS. 

9 Subsections (a) and (b) of section 402 of the Federal 

10 Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

11 1752) are amended by striking the words "ten years" each 

12 time such words occur in such subseetions and by insert13 ing in lieu thereof the words "five years". 

14 SEC. 4.. NONGRAZING USE. 

15 Section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Manage16 ment Act of 1976 ( 43 U.S.C. 1752) is amended by adding 

17 at the end thereof the following: 

18 "(i) ALLoTMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS; 

19 NONGRAZING USES.-

20 "(1) If a State natural resource or wildlife 

21 agency, or nongovernmental organization or private 

22 person in a cooperative agreement with a State nat23 ural resource or wildlife agency, is a holder of a 

24 grazing pennit or a lease and notifies the Secretary 

25 concerned that such holder intends to refrain from 

•BB 180ll1H 
10 

8 

1 utilizing for livestock grazing some or all of the for2 age available for such purposes under such permit or 

3 lease for an interval of at least 2 years for the pur4 pose of conservation or wildlife enhancement, the 

5 Secretary shall place such forage on a nonuse status 

6 for the interval specified by such holder at the time 

7 of notification. 

8 "(2) Forage placed on a nonlivestock-use status 

9 under this subsection shall not be available for dol 0 mestic livestock grazing under any permit or lease, 

11 and the unavailability of such forage for livestock 

12 grazing shall be taken into account by the Secretary 

13 in connection with the preparation or revision of 

14 plans for the management of the affected lands. 

15 "(3) The holder of a grazing permit or lease 

16 who has utilized the option under this subsection of 

17 having some or all of the forage covered by such per18 mit or lease placed on a nonuse status shall be given 

19 the first priority, pursuant to this subsection, for re20 ceipt of a new permit or lease for the land covered 

21 by such permit or lease after its expiration. 

22 "( 4) Any fee otherwise applicable for utilization 

23 by grazing of forage under a grazing permit or lease 

24 shall be reduced to the extent that such forage is on 

25 a nonuse status under this subsection.". 
11 

9 

1 SEC. I. PBOHIBmON OF SUBLEASING. 

2 Section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Manage3 ment Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1752), as amended by sec4 tion 3 of this .Act, is further amended by adding at the 

5 end thereof the following: 

6 "(j) PROHIBITION OF SUBLEASING.-(1) Subleasing 

7 is hereby prohibited. 

8 "(2) For purposes of this subsection the following 

9 terms shall have the following meanings: 

10 "(A) The term 'subleasing' means the grazing, 

11 on public lands or on National Forest lands covered 

12 by a grazing permit, of domestic livestock which is 

13 not both owned and controlled by the holder of the 

14 grazing permit. 

15 "(B) The term 'grazing permit' means a permit 

16 or lease of the type described in subsection (a) of 

17 this section which has been issued by the Secretary 

18 concerned pursuant to applicable law and which au19 thorizes for a specified term of years the grazing of 

20 domestic livestock on public lands or lands within 

21 National Forests in the 16 contiguous Western 

22 States. 

23 "(3) To assure compliance with this subsection, the 

24 Secretary concerned shall require each holder of a grazing 

25 permit to file annually an affidavit that such holder owns 

26 and controls all livestock which such holder is knowingly 

•RIIlMW'' 
12 

10 

1 allowing to graze on public lands or National Forest lands 

2 covered by such holder's grazing pennit. 

3 "(4)(A) A grazing pennit shall tenninate 30 days 

4 after the effective date of any lease, conveyance, transfer, 

5 or other voluntary action on the part of a holder of a graz6 ing pennit which has the effect of removing from the con7 trol of the holder of such pennit the privately owned prop8 erty or part thereof with respect to which a grazing pennit 

9 was issued. No grazing pursuant to such pennit shall be 

10 pennitted after such tennination unless, prior to such ter11 mination, the party that has obtained or will obtain con12 trol of such property or part thereof has submitted an ap13 plication for a grazing pennit based on such control, in 

14 which case the Secretary concerned may allow grazing to 

15 continue if such Secretary has reason to believe that such 

16 application is likely to be approved. Such continued gra.z17 ing shall be for a period no longer than the remainde!" 

18 of the grazing year during which such application was sub19 mitted. 

20 "(B)(i) A grazing permit held by a natural person 

21 shall terminate upon the death of its holder, but the Sec22 retary may permit grazing to continue on lands covered 

23 by such grazing pennit for a period not to exceed 2 years 

24 after the date of the death of such holder if necessary or 
13 

11 

1 appropriate in order to facilitate the orderly management 

2 of the deceased holder's estate. 

3 "(ii) A grazing permit shall terminate upon an invol4 untary transfer from the control of its holder (including 

5 a transfer by operation of law) of the privately owned 

6 property (or portion thereof) with respect to which such 

7 grazing permit was issued, but the Secretary may permit 

8 grazing to continue on lands covered by such grazing per9 mit for a period not to exceed 1 year after such involun10 tary transfer, if necessary, in order to facilitate the re11 demption, sale, or other disposition of such property or 

12 portion thereof. 

13 "(iii) After any continuation of grazing pursuant to 

14 either clause (i) or (ii) any grazing on lands affected by 

15 such continuation shall occur only subject to a new graz16 ing permit. 

17 "(iv) Any decision by the Secretary concerned to per18 mit a continuation of grazing pursuant to this paragraph 

19 shall be discretionary, and this paragraph shall not be con20 strued as vesting in any party any right to graze livestock 

21 on any lands owned by the United States or any right to 

22 any grazing permit. 

23 "(5) Any holder of a grazing permit who knowingly 

24 allows subleasing to occur on public lands or National For25 est lands covered by such permit shall forfeit to the United 
14 

12 

1 States the dollar equivalent of any value in excess of the 

2 grazing fee paid or payable to the United States with re~ 

3 speet to such permit, shall be disqualified from further ex4 ercise of any rights or privileges conferred by that permit 

5 or any other grazing permit, and shall be subject to the 

6 penalties specified in section 303 of this Act. 

7 "(6) Any person other than the holder of a grazing 

8 permit who knowingly engages in subleasing on or after 

9 the date of enactment of this subsection shall be subject 

10 to the penalties specified in section 303 of this Act.". 

0 
103n CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

15 

H.R.643 

To raise grazing fees on public lands, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JAl\lJARY 26, 1993 

Mr. SYNAR (for himself and Mr. REGULA) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To raise grazing fees on public lands, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ANNUAL DOMESTIC LIVESTOCK GRAZING FEE. 

4 Section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and ManageS ment Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1751), is hereby amended 

6 by adding at the end the following new subsections: 

7 "(c)(l) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

8 the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National For9 est lands in the 16 contiguous western states (except Na10 tional Grasslands) administered by the United States For11 est Service where domestic livestock grazing is permitted 

12 under applicable law, and the Secretary of the Interior 
16 

2 

1 with respect to public domain lands administered by the 

2 Bureau of Land Management where domestic livestock 

3 grazing is permitted under applicable law, shall establish 

4 beginning with the grazing season which commences on 

5 March 1, 1993, an annual domestic livestock grazing fee 

6 equal to fair market value: Provided, That the fee charged 

7 for any given year shall not increase nor decrease by more 

8 than 33.3 percent from the previous year's grazing fee. 

9 "(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, the term 

10 'fair market value' is defined as follows: 

Appraised Base ValuexForage Value Index 

Fair Market Value= 

100 

11 "(B) For the purposes of subparagraph (A)-

12 "{i) the term 'Forage Value Index' means the 

13 Forage Value Index (FVI) computed annually by the 

14 Economic Research Service, United States Depart15 ment of Agriculture, and set with the 1993 FVI 

16 equal to 100; and 

17 "(ii) the term 'Appraised Base Value' means 

18 the 1983 Appraisal Value conclusions for mature 

19 cattle and horses (expressed in dollars per head or 

20 per month), as determined in the 1986 report pre21 pared jointly by the Secretary of Agriculture and the 

22 Secretary of the Interior entitled 'Grazing Fee Re23 view and Evaluation', dated February 1986, on a 

•HR 843 m 
17 

3 

1 westwide basis using the lowest appraised value of 

2 the pricing areas adjusted for advanced payment 

3 and indexed to 1993. 

4 "(3) Executive Order No. 12548, dated February 14, 

5 1986, shall not apply to grazing fees established pursuant 

6 to this Act. 

7 "(d) The grazing advisory boards established pursu8 ant to Secretarial action, notice of which was published 

9 in the Federal Register on May 14, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 

10 17874), are hereby abolished, and the advisory functions 

11 exercised by such boards, shall, after the date of enact12 ment of this sentence, be exercised only by the appropriate 

13 councils established under this section. 

14 " (e) Funds appropriated pursuant to section 5 of the 

15 Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 

16 1904) or any other provision of law related to disposition 

17 of the Federal share of receipts from fees for grazing on 

18 public domain lands or National Forest lands in the 16 

19 contiguous western States shall be used for restoration 

20 and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, for restora21 tion and improved mana~ment of riparian areas, and for 

22 implementation and enforcement of applicable land man23 agement plans, allotment plans, and regulations regarding 

24 the use of such lands for domestic livestock grazing. Such 

25 funds shall be distributed as the Secretary concerned 
18 

4 

l deems advisable after consultation and coordination with 

2 the advisory councils established pursuant to section 309 

3 of this Act and other interested parties.". 

0 
19 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have my 

full testimony submitted to the record. 

Mr. VENTO. Without objection, the opening statements of all 

Members and witnesses in their entirety will be made part of the 

record. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, what we are going to hear today is 

a lot of testimony on the anti-public use philosophies that are being taken by the western ranchers. The testimony will tell us that the 

tax burdens of this country are subsidizing the grazers of public lands and they are committing environmental chaos on these lands. 

Honestly, coming from the West and having spent hundreds of 

hours on the public lands, I don't think much of that is true. I 

think basically we are looking at three things. One, we are going 

to lose the money from the ranchers. Two, we are going to put a 

lot of people in bankruptcy that are going to lose their ranches. The 

worst one of all, Mr. Chairman, is we are going to bum the public 

lands. 

Now, come on, Mike, let me get through it. 

Here we go again-one of the most important things we have 

working with the people on the public lands is the idea, how do you 

use this management tool on the range, taking out the grass on the 

range? It has been used to keep it down. I could submit and will 

submit for the record the testimony of a dozen people who are land 

management experts, doctors degrees, that say we're going to bum 

the range just like we burned Yellowstone Park if we take away 

this tool. 

I don't know why people seem to ignore that consciously. This 

committee has explored the same type of legislation for years and 

has never received sufficient support for it to become law. The 

truth of the matter is that our ranchers represent the best and 

cheapest stewards of this public land that the public could ask for. 

The public range is currently in better condition than it has been 

for years. That is due to the resource management of both the 

agencies involved and the ranchers themselves. As Secretary Babbitt himself has stated, we cannot afford to drive our ranchers off 

the public range, for if we do we will wreak environmental havoc 

on these lands, so he himself has made that statement. What I was 

just talking about, I think there is a lot of validity, if we will listen 

to the experts, of what we are going to do with the public lands. 

Mr. Chairman, the fair market value approach of H.R. 1602 and 

H.R. 643 is based on faulty numbers and results in economic destruction to our western ranching industry. An increase from $1.86 

per annum to $4.96 per annum would be devastating not only to 

the family ranchers in the West but also the lands which are currently under the careful stewardship of the ranchers. 

However, the raw numbers are not the real issue here. I as well 

as the ranchers are concerned about the resource. That should be 

our focus here. I do not think that anyone should be heard saying that the resource is a secondary factor. 
20 

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the ranching people want to 

go back to working the land rather than working us here in Washington. The PRIA formula has been successful and continues to 

work by improving the resource. If we are going to seriously look 

at improving the grazing system, let's do it with all parties involved, and not with some formulas that simply put certain parties 

at ease that ranchers are not being subsidized. 

I thank the witnesses for coming and look forward to this hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Congressman Smith? 

STATEMENT OF BON. ROBERT F. SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Each spring when the sun comes out in Washington, we begin 

discussing grazing fees. This is no different matter. It is unfortunate, I think, that this issue has been demagogued so badly by preservationists, who I suppose sincerely believe, not knowing any other term to use, sincerelY' believe that somehow livestock are destroying the ranges in the West, and the facts just refute, of course, 

that charge. There is an agenda by preservationists to eliminate all private 

uses of public lands, be it timber or mining or livestock grazing. These bills which we are going to hear will do exactly that by the 

time we reach $5 ~r animal unit month (AUM). 

You are not rru.sing any money for the Treasury. Don't kid me 

or anybody else about the fact that there is not a diminishing return as you raise grazing fees, simply because of the affordability. 

Anybody that wants to balance the budget with these bills or increase revenue with these bills are frankly kidding themselves, because just the opposite will occur. We will have less revenue and 

surely less agriculturalists in the West. 

There are about 31,000 families who depend upon ~azing the 

public land, and these are the people that are at stake m this battle. For an administration and a party to declare that people should be first, this seems to me to be a backward approach, because with these bills enacted as they are written, people are eliminated from the use of lands in the West. 

These bills would increase the fee, Mr. Vento's bill by 167 percent, and of the 31,000 people, you are not getting at huge corpora- tions. You are getting at people. Eighty-eight percent of the people 

who hold grazing fees average $28,000 per year income. So these 

are small people depending upon public lands and depending upon, by the way, their government to continue their operations, and certainly not to eliminate the use of those lands. 

Mr. Chairman, you can slam dunk this bill in the House, as it 

has occurred in the past, and the Senate will stop it, as it has in 

the past, and possibly we can get sometime to some reasonable resolution. But our President recognizes the importance of this issue. 

Of course, having been visited by several members of the Senate, 

he himself bcacked away from this issue, so I think he is beginning 

to understand the problem. 

I have spoken with Secretary Babbitt. I know he is going to hold 

hearings in the West. I look forward to that prospect, and I think 
21 

he will again realize that you can't price people off the range for 

no purpose, no reason. 

So we will go through this ritual again, and there will be those 

who will want to price us off the range, and finally and possibly 

this year we might find some reasonable position, but it surely isn't 

either one of these bills and it surely won't happen out of this committee. 

Mr. VENTO. The gentlewoman from Arizona, Ms. English. 

Ms. ENGLISH. I have no opening comments, but I do thank you 

for the opportunity. 

Mr. VENTO. Ms. Shepherd? 

Ms. SHEPHERD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening 

comments. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Thomas? 

STATEMENT OF BON. CRAIG THOMAS 

Mr. THoMAS. Yes, sir, I do have some opening comments. Thank 

you. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I appreciate you having this hearing in the authorizing committee. I think that is where we ought 

to be handling these things. So for our sprin¥ ritual, this is a good place to do it, as opposed to in the appropriat1ons bill. 

The interesting thing, it seems to me, is three or four things in 

here that are generally of great concern to us. One is jobs. Another 

is the land pattern in the West, and I think another is to find a 

resolution so that people who live in the West can have some stability in the future and in the values of those lands, and know 

where we are going. 

It is ironic, it seems to me, that the great debates are going on 

in the Congress, particularly in the Senate over the last several 

weeks, about jobs, about a relatively small number of jobs, jobs 

that·are temporary summer jobs, and then we come in with an operation like this that really affects not only the specific jobs of peo- ple on ranches, but the specific livelihood of people who live in 

small communities that are supported by agriculture in the West. 

We can talk all we want to about the changes in land use and 

about the similarities with market prices in other parts of the 

country, Oklahoma or whatever, but there is a particular land pattern in the West that must be recognized. The checkerboard land 

pattern means that in order to utilize the resources that are there, 

both public and private resources, there has to be a way of utilizing public lands. 

I don't think you want to go in and fence out the Federal lands. 

I don't think the Federal Government is prepared to do that, and 

there are a lot of folks who could operate on their own land. We 

can't forget how these lands were developed, in the checkerboards 

and so on. 

The other factor is, we need a resolution. There is clearly a prob- lem, a long-term problem, every year wondering where we are 

going to be. How would you like to be trying to sell a family ranch 

that is dependent on Federal lands, which is interspersed with Federal lands, and try to find a value to that when it is uncertain as 

to what the use and price of those Federal lands will be? 
22 

So we are not talking about welfare here, we are talking about 

private sector jobs and thousands of jobs that are created by an industry. We aren't talking about people who are looking for a government handout, we are talking about a way of life and using a 

resource. 

So I really wish we would find some resolution, and I would like 

to be part of that, and stop this annual wrangling. And really the 

exposure, I am sure, is not quite worth the price. So, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are here. I hope we can get on with it. 

Thank y-ou. 

Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman. I listened carefully to his 

statement. I hope that we can work together on this. I think we 

probably can. 

Mr. Calvert, did you have an opening statement this morning? 

STATEMENT OF BON. KEN CALVERT 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

I look forward this morning to hearing from BLM, the Forest 

Service, and other groups who know so much about managing grazing lands and grazing fees. AB a Congressman in the western region of the United States, I know how vital the cattle industry is 

to our economy and how ~portant this subject is to them. 

Having worked for the BLM on a variety of projects before becoming a Congressman, I know the extent to which the Federal 

Government owns and manages lands in the West. With so many 

people earning their livelihood on these lands, whether through 

ranching, farming or mining, we as a committee need to take care 

that everyone's interests are considered when making a major policy change. 

We all understand the need to reduce the deficit. I am not sure 

raising grazing fees, which is in essence another form of taxation, 

is the answer. Perhaps reducing spending is a better solution. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF BON. RALPH REGT.JI..At A U.S. REP· 

RESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF OlllO; BON. MIKE 

SYNAR, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF OKLA· 

HOMA; AND BON. JOE SKEEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. VENTO. We are pleased to welcome our colleagues, and I am 

pleased to note that Con§l'essman Joe Skeen is appearing this 

morning as well. We didn t get notice of that, Joe. We are sorry. 

Mr. SKEEN. I just wanted to surprise you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. We appreciate your participation and look forward to 

your working with us on this. You obviously have a keen interest 

in it. 

We are pleased to welcome Congressmen Regula and Synar, who 

have teamed up in a number of instances to lead successful amendments on the floor, with Congressman Darden and others on the 

committee. We will take them in that order. Your statements, my 

friends, have been made part of the record. Ralph, you can proceed 

to summarize or read the portions that you choose to. Welcome. 
23 

STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH REGULA 

Mr. REGULA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief and summarize my testimony, which is in the record. 

I think the gentleman from Wyoming is correct. There should be 

a resolution to this matter, because of course the people that depend on the use of grazing fees need to know what their costs will 

be prospectively. In tum we need to know in the Interior Appro- priations how to manage these lands and how much to allocate 

from the resources. Farming is not something you can get into and 

out of overnight, so that having some constancy about what grazing fees will be and the formula in the years ahead is an important element. I also agt"ee that land patterns are a vital part of this, because these lands have a multiple use and are part of the Nation's 

resources. 

I have supported modest increases in the past, and I think what 

we are proposing here is a modest increase. Certainly when you look at the GAO reports and recognize what is being paid for State 

lands as well as J?rivate lands, there is a very substantial difference. I would think that this committee would want to evaluate 

the formula to determine whether it represents fairness to the taxpayers that owns these lands. I think this would be the objective 

we would hope to achieve with H.R. 643. 

These are public lands. I find a little bit, in dealing with western 

,landowners, a feeling that the public lands are really a private element, to the point that they are sold sometimes, or at least the access to the leases is part of the sale of a private adjoining piece of 

land. But we can't forget that these are owned by all the people in 

these United States. 

I think that the present fee is flawed, in that in structuring the 

fee the formula does not adequately reflect a fair return. It is interesting to note that under the current formula the fees have declined in the past two years, and it would certainly indicate that 

the present formula is creating an artificially low AUM cost. 

For example, the formula includes the ability-to-pay factors 

twice, using a mathematical design that has served to suppress increases in the fee over time. As a result, the grazing fee is 20 percent lower than it was in 1981. It is quite easy to understand that 

with inflation prices are considerably more generally than they 

were in 1981, and yet the grazing fee is lower. 

When you contrast this with the fact that there has been a 25 

percent increase in private lands, I think it clearly indicates that 

the formula needs to be revisited. I also think the grazing fee formula is inconsistent with the Federal Lands Grazing Policy Management Act, which requires the government to receive fair market 

value for its public land resources. 

The point has been made that this would have a great impact on 

jobs, put people out of business. Yet, only 2 percent of the livestock 

producers have Federal grazing permits, so the other 98 percent 

are competing with the 2 percent that have the advanta~e of these 

lower grazing fees. The other 98 percent are either grazmg on private lands owned by the farmer or leased from the State and from 

other private owners. 

I think that in fairness the cost should be equal, and particularly 

in terms of the grazing fee that the Federal Government is charg-
24 

ing. For example, the fees collected by State boards, which do not 

use the PRIA formula, range from $2.50 to $11.20 per animal unit, 

and on private lands it is as high as $20, yet we find under the 

present formula it is much lower on the Federal lands. And of 

course we find the present formula emphasizes cos~ elements most 

affected by inflation and market changes, such as fuel and e9.uipment costs, and excludes those that tend to increase less over tune, 

such as feed and fertilizer. 

Now we recognize that you can't get to a fair market value overnight, so we provide that no more than one third in any fiscal_year 

can be levied until fair market value is reached. And so the bill includes a basis for calculating fair market value, but which slows 

the rate of increase by using the appraised value of grazing lands 

in the area which has the lowest land values on a West-wide basis. 

What I am saying here is that we are trying to be fair. We are 

recognizing that you need to take time to get to fair market value, 

and in constructing a formula we tried to use the appraised values 

that are reco¢zed to be fair to those that are grazing. 

I think it 1s important that we address this problem. I think it 

is important that we settle it. I know it has been around. I have 

been before this committee, I think, for maybe four or five years. 

We always get shot down in the Senate. They have incorporated it 

into the Interior appropriations bill, and it is usually one Of the last 

items in conference that gets tossed out because of the resistance 

on the part of the West. 

But it would seem to me that what this committee ought to do 

and what the Senators should do is ~et a fair formula and resolve 

the problem. Otherwise it will be reV1sited, obviously. Probably the 

department can deal with it by an executive order, and may choose 

to do so, but I think the more proper way to do it is to adopt a 

formula that is equitable and do it through the policymaking responsibility that we as a legislative body have in dealing with these 

public lands. 

I would hope the committee will seriously evaluate what we have 

proposed in the legislation and perhaps make some changes that 

you think represent a more equitable approach, but nevertheless 

not ignore the problem and cause us to be back next year with the 

same circumstances. Maybe it would be better if you were to deal 

with it, rather than to leave it to the department to do it by executive order. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Regula follows:] 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RALPH REGULA. 

Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the subcommittee for holding hearings on this 

important issue. It is not one that is new to this committee. I have been appearing before this Committee to argue for an increase in grazing fees since 1987. As you all know I have supported modest increases which have passed as part of the Interior Appropriations bill for the past several years. I was also successful in having an amendment included in the BLM reauthonzation bill that cleared the House during the last Congress. Regrettably all of these efforts have been Pyrrhic victories 

because, as we all know, reform efforts fall on deaf ears when they reaeh the other 

body. 

When Mike Synar and I introduced our grazing fee bill, however, in January I 

held out new hope that grazing and other much needed public land reforms might become a reality this year given the Administration's support. However, those hopes 

too were dashed a few weeks ago when the President bOwed to the special interests 

of the west. The burden is once again squarely on your shoulders, Mr. Chairman. 
25 

As we all know, the current formula for setting fees charged livestock operators 

that graze domestic livestock on federal lands was established in the Public Rangeland Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA). PRIA prescribed a formula that was to be 

in place for a 7-year trial period. The experiment has failed and Mr. Chairman, if 

I may echo our President, it is time for a change. 

The Fair Market Grazing for Public Ran~elands Act H.R. 643, if implemented 

would improve the management of 250 mill10n acres of publicly-owned rangelands 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. It would 

also begin to provide for a fairer return to the public for the use of these lands. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that these lands are publicly owned. We have a duty to the owners, the American taxpayers, to see that these lands are man(lged 

properly and that the taxpayer receives a fair return for the use of these lands. That 

has not hapJJened to date, but the bill Congressman Synar and I have introduced 

would right that injustice. Congress has, and will likely continue to debate the issue of what a fair fee is. 

What should not be debatable, however, is that the current grazing fee formula is 

flawed. By any measure the current fee, which has declined in each of the past two 

years under the current formula, is too low. The current formula is specifically de· 

signed to keep the fee artificially low. 

According to the General Accounting Office (GAO) in a 1991 report, relatively low 

fees are an inherent result of the existing formula's design. The formula begins with a low base grazing fee value and adjusts this value in subsequent years using_an 

index that heavily weights factors aimed at measuring rancher "ability to pay." The 

formula includes these ability-to-pay factors twice using a mathematical design that 

has served to suppress increases in the fee over time. As a result, the federal grazing fee is 20 percent lower than it was in 1981. This contrasts with a 25-percent 

increase in pnvate grazing land lease rates over the same period. 

The current grazing fee formula is inconsistent with the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act which requires the government to receive fair market value for its 

public land resources. It does not even recover reasonable program costs or provide a revenue base that can be used to better manage and improve federal lands. 

For example in fiscal year 1990 grazin~ fee collections totaled $27,035,000. Of 

that amount less than $8 million was retamed l:ly the U.S. treasury and only $13.5 

million was deposited to the Range Betterment Fund. The average cost of the range 

management program that same year was $3.22 per AUM versus a grazing fee of 

$1.81 per AUM. 

Proponents of the status quo argue that the costs associated with operating on public lands are significantly higher than on private lands. In fact the current formula has taken that concern into account twice by double counting ability-to-pay 

factors. It is also simply not the case. Last year D. Michael Curran of Wolf Creek 

Montana testified befOre the Senate on the BLM reauthorization. According to Mr. 

Curran his basic business is the sale of grass. Quoting from his testimony: "We con- sider our greatest competitors to be the BLM and the Forest Service. These are the ~ple that subsidize our competition by leasing them grazing land at prices far 

below our costs of ownership, (taxes, water development etc.) far excesd those borne 

by federal permittees. 

Many permittees try to argue that the.Y make investments in the public lands that 

benefit the government. Whether these mvestments do or do not benefit the government, the 1992 updated Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation Report revealed that 

these permittee investments in range improvement averaged only $0.17 per AUM 

in 1990 and totalled less than $3 million. 

By virtually any measure the federal fee is the lowest around. For example fees 

collected by state land boards which do not use the PRIA formula range from $2.50 

to $11.20. Private land lease rates are as high as $20 per AUM. Once again the 

federal government is charging and receiving bargain basement rates. 

The existing formula further suppresses the fee by emphasizing cost elements 

most affected by inflation and market changes, such as fuel and equipment costs 

and excluding those that tend to increase less over time such as feed and fertilizer. 

As much as I support increasing the fee charged I have actually voted against some grazing fee increases because I believe they went too far too fast. The fill before us today, however, is fair. It does not attempt to drive the western ranchers 

off the public lands, but merely to begin recovering some of the costs of managing 

the ranJe lands and begin approaching something resembling a fair market value 

for grazmg permits. 

Our bill proposes to increase the fee by no more than one third in any one fiscal 

year until fair market value is reached. In the first year that would result in a fee 

of$2.56. 
26 

The bill also uses a basis for calculating "fair market value" which further slows 

the rate of increase by using the appraised value of grazing lands in the area which 

has the lowest land values-the westwide basis. 

Further the argument that any increase in grazing fees will drive western ranch· ers out of business is simply not supported by the facts. Based on the 1992 Grazing fee update produced by the Forest Service and BLM even at a fee as hUrh as the 

private lease rate of $9.19 reveals a positive return in every case. In the snort-term, 

the average producer would be able to cover production costs while maintaining cur- rent herd levels. 

In reality livestock enterprise returns are much more sensitive to changes in livestock prices than they are to changes in grazin~ fees. 

Congress must act to ~ phasing in a fllll'e!', more market based grazing fee, 

both for its economic benefits and its environmental ones. I urge my colleagues on this committee to report a bill revising the grazing fee 

formula along the lines advocated in this bill and I look forward to working with 

the Committee to accomplish this goal. 

Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman. We are going to hold our 

questions until we hear from you and Mike and Joe, if that is going 

to work out for you, Congressman Regula. Congressman Synar, welcome. 

Mike has been a real leader. He has taken on this issue, obviously forcing everyone to face up to it at the very least. 

Thanks, Mike. Please proceed to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BON. MIKE SYNAR A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

Mr. SYNAR. Thank you, Bruce. Let us all hope this is the last 

time we have to come together on this particular subject. Let me start by saying that in no way do my disagreements with 

Jim, Bob, and Craig in any way take away from the immense 

amount of respect that I have for them and the way they fight for 

this issue. We are back again, and Ralph and I have a very simple proposition, as we have before. 

We want to give you the opportunity to have a twofer. The twofer 

being, we want to give you the opportunity to improve the management of more than 250 million acres of publicly held ranch lands 

in this country. We also want to deliver to your pocket $325 million 

over the next 5 fiscal years. That is exactly what the Fair Market 

Grazing Public Rangelands Act will do. 

The facts are very clear. Taxpayers are losing 80 cents of every dollar that we use in this Federal program. In fact, the grazing fee, 

as Ralph pointed out, has gone down from $1.98 per AUM to $1.86. 

That is because of the problem with the formula, as Ralph pointed 

out. 

That formula, which was developed in 1978, was an experiment 

to put in place basically a political compromise, and what we have 

learned smce that date is that that experiment was a failure. As 

a result, what we are seeing is that grazing fees are going in the 

opposite direction, the $1.86. That is at the same time when the 

pnce of beef, the demand for grass, private land lease rates for all 

comparable lands, have all increased. So that shows you how idiotic 

the formula is. 

Now unlike what people would hold out about Mike Synar and 

Ralph Regula, both of whom grew up on farms and were active in 

4-H, we both believe and are convinced that a healthy livestock industry is an important element in maintaining the western open 

space and western economy. Where we disagree is that we don't believe that retaining the low-cost grazing rights for 23,000 public 
27 

rangeland livestock producers is essential in maintaining western 

values. 

It comes down to this. It is time to run our Federal rangelands like a business. We want to give these ranchers a good dose of free 

enterprise. The simple truth is that the Federal grazing permit holders are feeding, not off the grain, not off the land, but off the 

Federal Treasury. Today I am going to issue one more report which accompanies literally the stack in front of us that has been issued over the last 

8 years, none of which facts have ever been disputed. It is going 

to show one more time the need to revamp this program. 

This report will show that although the BLM has obligated more 

than $46 million in rangeland improvement from 1987 to 1991, the 

agency does not have a complete inventory of the investment of 

range improvements or an accurate accounting of the range improvements costs by projects. This report will show that out of 

1,353 so-called range improvement projects undertaken in 1990 

and 1991 alone, only 2 were specifically directed at combatting the 

environmental effects of grazing and improving wildlife habitat. 

It is the same old story. BLM is unaccountable. This program is 

out of control. It doesn't pay for itself. It is very disturbing to learn 

in this report that in 4 7 percent of all the projects on which BLM 

collected cost data, the data were inaccurate. So unfortunately the 

BLM continues to demonstrate what we have seen for many years, which is a lax attitude towards these public expenditures and the 

condition of the public rangelands. 

Let me close as I always do in these debates. We need to do this. 

It is good for the taxpayers. It is good for the Federal lands. It is 

long overdue, and if we are serious about deficit reduction and running government like a business, you have to support this legisla- tion. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Synar follows:] 
MIKE SYNAR 

ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JUDICIARY 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

28 

C!Congress of tbt 1lnittb &tatts 

_,oust of Rtprtstntatibts 

i!llas~ington, JB( 20515-3602 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

2329Au•v•"H0uU0fFI08U1lOU•G 

WAS"'""TO" DC20SIS-3602 

12021225-2101 

OISTROCTOHICf 

2822FfOfU<8UilOUo<;; 

12SSOVTMMAI,.ST•Ut 

Ml/SAOG!I.OK a•01 

C918ii587-2SJJ 

H.R 643, Fair Market Grazing for Public Rangelands Act of 1993 

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE SYNAR 

April 20, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 643, the 

Fair Market Grazing for Public Rangelands Act of 1993, which I introduced along with my 

good friend Representative Ralph Regula of Ohio. Enactment of this measure will be good 

for both the taxpayers and the environment. 

The Fair Market Grazing for Public Rangelands Act will improve the management 

of more than 250 million acres of publicly-owned rangelands administered by the 

Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Agriculture's 

U.S. Forest Service. Equally importantly, this Act could save the taxpayers more than $325 

million over the next five Fiscal Years. 

Mr. Chairman, in 1934, in the midst of the Dust Bowl era, Congress enacted the 

Taylor Grazing Act in an effort to stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing 

overgrazing and soil deterioration, and to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and 

development. But it has not been an easy job. 

This year the taxpayers may lose another 80 cents for every dollar spent to administer 

the federal grazing program. Notwithstanding this sorry statistic, the federal grazing fee has 

actually declined in each of the past two years from $1.98 per Animal Unit Month (AUM] 

to $1.86 per AUM, even though private land lease rates and other market indexes have 

consistently increased. (An Animal Unit Month is the amount offorage required to sustain 

one animal unit -- a cow and calf, mature horse or five sheep -- for one month. An AUM 

is a standard unit of measure used to price forage regardless of the carrying capacity - or 

biological productivity -- of any particular tract of land.) 

The problem, Mr. Chairman, is the current grazing fee formula. It was an 
29 

experiment put into place as the result of a political compromise in 1978. It is an 

experiment that has failed. It was adopted to protect western livestock grazing operators 

from the rigors of the market place by supporting the view that the economic stability of the 

industry could only be protected thorough low grazing fees. However, the other side of the 

compromise has been all but forgotten in the intervening years. This seldom remembered 

aspect of the t9781egislation reduced federal gazing fees, while the Forest Service and BLM 

went out to study the real-life economics of public rangelands, appraise the fair market 

value of publicly-owned forage and find a range of market-based solutions to pricing this 

taxpayer asset. Then, although we subsequently got the answers to those important fair 

market value questions, President Reagan scuttled the reports, locked-in the current fee 

formula at favorable rates and simply ignored all evidence of its inherent unfairness 

thereafter. As a result, the taxpayers have lost millions of dollars subsidizing 2 percent of 

the nation's livestock producers. 

In fact, Mr. Chairman, ridiculously low grazing fees are an unavoidable result of the 

existing fee formula's design. The formula begins With a low base value grazing fee and 

adjusts this value in subsequent years using an index that heavily weights factors aimed at 

measuring rancher "ability to pay." In fact, the formula is so generous that it includes these 

ability-to-pay factors twice, using a mathematical design that has consistently served to 

suppress increases in the fee over time. As a result, the federal grazing fee is 20 percent 

lower now than its was 12 years ago. This contrasts with a 25 percent increase in private 

grazing land lease rates over the same period. 

As a result, Mr. Chairman, the current grazing fee formula Federal grazing fees have 

declined to $1.86/ AUM in 1993 even though the price of beef, the demand for grass and 

the private land lease rate for comparable lands all increased. The fees may continue to 

decline in future years, because the formula uses a rancher cost-of-operations index that 

emphasizes cost elements most affected by inflation and excludes cost elements that tend 

to increase less over time. This Prices Paid Index (PPI) was developed solely for use in the 

1978 Public Range Improvements Act and is made up of selected components of the 

National Index of Prices Paid by Farmers maintained by the National Agricultural Statistical 

Service. The PPI excludes farm-produced cost components included in the broader index 

such as feed, feeder livestock. seed and fertilizer. The exclusion of those components 

overstates the public lands livestock operators' production costs. Moreover, since the 

noninclusive index is subtracted in absolute terms from the other market-driven factors in 

the existing fee formula, it acts to significantly reduce the fee ultimately calculated. 

Mr. Chairman, the benefits of low-cost federal grazing have not been widely shared. 

Public rangeland grazing permit holders complain that it costs them a lot more to operate 

on federal lands. I question that assertion. Certainly, they have to handle their cattle, pay 

veterinarians bills, dig stock ponds, flx fences, provide salt, transport stock to pasture and 

sometimes the animals must be replaced. But ranchers in may District and all over the 

United States have the same expenses i!lli! they must either buy their land and pay taxes on 

that rangeland, or pay $4.25 to $11.00 per AUM to a state wildlife agency for grazing rights, 

2 

69-312 0 - 93 - 2 
30 

or pay as much $20 per AUM to lease private land. 

Only 2 percent of the 932,000 cattle producers in the country graze their cattle on 

Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land. Only 23,600 ranches and farms out 

of the total 240,300 livestock producers in the 16 Western and Great Plains states have 

public rangeland grazing permits, with 14 percent of those producers grazing livestock on 

both For est Service and BLM administered rangelands. 

Mr. Chairman, for years, many of my Oklahoma constituents -- and many of the 

people who oppose federal grazing fee increases -- have told me: "Congressman, what you 

need to do is run the government more like a business!" Well, I agree. It is time to run 

public rangelands more like a business. 

After all, Mr. Cbainnan, what is wrong with the market place? After all, reliance 

upon market principles is the essential ingredient needed to provide the taxpayers with 

improved management of 250 million acres of public rangelands administered by the 

Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Agriculture's 

U.S. Forest Service. 

Running the government more like a business does not mean that livestock grazing 

should be removed from public rangelands. In fact, I think that livestock grazing is a valid 

and valuable use of suitable public lands when it is managed by resource professionals. I 

believe that proper livestock grazing on public rangeland can benefit wildlife habitat, by 

managing both wildlife and livestock in concert. And, I am convinced that a healthy 

livestock industry is an important element in maintaining Western open space and the 

Western economy. 

Although I have repeated those observations in virtually every statement I have ever 

made on federal grazing, many of my detractors continue to accuse me of wanting to •get 

cattle off public lands." Nothing could be further from the truth. My efforts have always 

focused on the economics of public land ranching rather than any arguments of special 

interest groups. Uniortunately, instead of joining a debate on the facts, many public land 

ranchers have preferred to view any effort to discuss this important public policy issue as 

a threat to rural lifestyles, Western values or anything but the unreasonably low cost of 

federal grazing rights. 

Believe it or not, Mr. Chairman, I have never singled out grazing fees or public land 

ranchers. In fact, I favor placing all resource uses on public lands -- including Western 

range programs -- on a "pay as you go" basis. In fact, I think it is time for Congress to give 

all commercial uses of public lands a good dose of free enterprise. 

However, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that retaining below-cost grazing rights for 

the 23,600 public rangeland livestock producers is essential to maintaining Western values. 

It is quite the opposite. I contend that Western virtues of self-reliance and independence 

3 
31 

are poorly served by a policy that protects a few producers from competition and the market 

place. I think the merits of the Western way of life will survive a reasonable increase in 

federal grazing fees. It will be good for both the taxpayers and good, old fashioned 

competition. 

The existing federal grazing fee formula is fatally flawed. It only protects public land 

ranchers from the rigors of the market place by keeping the federal grazing fees 

unrealistically low. Even the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture have admitted that 

the current grazing fee formula overstates the eosts of doing business by "double counting' 

the expenses of doing business on public lands. As a result, the formula is not fair to the 

taxpayers. And it is not fair to private land ranchers who must compete against federal 

governroent subsidies. 

While federal rangeland issues have been a source of continuing political controversy 

and debate throughout most of this century, the arguments have changed very little since 

the first grazing fees were instituted in 1906. In fact, whenever I prepare to debate these 

questions, I am reminded of the words of Rep. John Andrew Martin of Colorado during the 

debate on the Taylor Grazing Act: 

As !listened to the debate this afternoon I reflected that Members of this body could 

go back into tbe debates of Congress 25 or 26 or 28 years ago, and not only find 

everything that has been said against this bill here this afternoon but 20 times more. 

It is true, the same arguments you will hear today were made 58, 80 and 87 years 

ago. Eac:h time Congress considers charging fair market value for the privilege of grazing 

on public lands •• and, it is a privilege, not a right •• the same old arguments are raised to 

prevent it. I think it is time for a change. 

Today, more than 58 years after passage of the Taylor Grazing Act, much of the 

public rangeland is still in poor or unsatisfactory condition. In fact, the Bureau of Land 

Management's own reports show that as much as 60 percent of the public rangeland will 

continue to be in fair to poor condition well into the next century. 

According to a recent report by the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, the 

federal grazing program costs more the taxpayers than $73 million to administer, but grazing 

fees equal only $27 million •• of which, more than $5 million was sent back to the states. 

So even the past Administration admitted that the annual taxpayer subsidy to the grazing 

program is at least $50 million each year. 

To be sure, under our proposal, a few ranchers would eventually lose their subsidy 

and have to compete with the other 98 percent of all livestock producers, who have no 

federal leases or subsidies. 

But, we will all have to make sacrifices to put the federal governroent back on track. 

4 
32 

Government charity is as difficult to stop on western rangelands as it is in the ghettos of our 

major cities. Since cattle prices have been at a reasonably high level for the past three 

years, isn't it time that everyone paid their fair share? I think it is. 

We introduced this legislation because we are concerned about the future of our 

rangelands and the future of our deficit. We want to head grazing management in the right 

direction. We believe that unless grazing fees are increased, the taxpayer will continue to 

subsidize livestock that represents only 2 percent of total U.S. meat production; the costs 

of the grazing program will continue to exceed receipts; and the government will continue 

to encourage overgrazing of our public lands. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe Congress should begin to phase-in a more realistic grazing 

fee beginning immediately. The Fair Market Grazing for Public Rangelands Act of 1993 

does just that. This new federal rangeland grazing fee structure would produce a Fiscal 

Year 1993 grazing fee for Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands in 

16 Western States of $2.56 per AUM. (National Grasslands and so-called Eastern National 

Forests are covered by other roles and regulations and are therefore excluded from this 

measure.) Beginning in Fiscal Year 1994, the balance of the fair market value for federal 

grazing rights would be phased-in as the federal rangeland grazing fee is increased by no 

more than 33 percent per year until it is equal to the so.;;alled westwide application of a 

Modified Market Value Fee system as described by the Secretaries of Interior and 

Agriculture in reports to Congress in 1986 and 1992. Under this so-called Modified Market 

Value Fee System, the Fiscal Year 1994 grazing fee would be approximately $3.41 per 

AUM. The Fiscal Year 1995 fee could be raised to $4.52 per AUM. And, in Fiscal Year 

1996, the grazing fee could increase again to $5.36 per AUM, depending on market 

conditions. 

As a result of this action, Congress could reduce the grazing subsidy significantly over 

the next five Fiscal Years. In tum, these savings can be used to fully fund federal range 

improvement activities on a "pay as you go" basis. 

Simply stated, Mr. Chairman. the Fair Market Grazing for Public Rangelands Act of 

1993 requires the return of reasonable value for the lease of publicly-owned assets. It is fair. 

It is reasonable. 

I urge the Committee to repon H.R 643 to the House with a favorable 

recommendation. Moreover, I urge all of my colleagues to join as co-sponsors of the Fair 

Market Grazing for Public Rangelands Act of 1993. It will be good for both the taxpayers 

and the environment. 

5 
33 

Grazing Fee Comparison 

Cum!nl Fee Synar/Regula H.R. 643 

&.mu!IJl Westwide Base Value 

1993 $1.861 $2.561 

1994 L8o' 3.41 

1995 1.74 4.52 

1996 1.68 5.36' 

1997 1.61 

1 Federal grazing fee has fallen from $1.98/AUM in 1991 and from $1.92/AUM in 

1992 under current formula. 

2 Fee formula used to establish fees based on Modified Market Model described by 

the 1986 Grazine Fee Review and Evaluation Report (at page 38) and 1992 Grazine 

Fee Review and Evaluation lJodate Report (at page 39), by Secretaries of Interior 

and Agriculture. Annual increase would be limited to not more than 33.3 percent 

per year (H.R. 643, Section 1, page 2, lines 6). 

3 Federal grazing fees have declined from $1.98/AUM in 1991 to $1.86/AUM in 1993 

even though the price of beef, the demand for grass and the private land lease rate 

for comparable lands all increased. The fees may continue to decline in future years, 

because formula uses a rancher cost-of-operations index that emphasizes cost 

elements most affected by inflation and excludes cost elements than tend to increase 

less over time. This Prices Paid Index (PPI) was developed solely for the use in the 

1978 Public Range Improvements Act and is made up of selected components of the 

National Index of Price Paid by Farmers maintained by the national Agricultural 

Statistical Service The PPI excludes farm-produced cost components included in the 

broader index such a< feed. feeder livestock, seed and fertilizer. The exclusion of 

those components ovemate< the public lands livestock operators' production costs. 

Moreover. sine~! the nomnc lusive index is subtracted in absolute terms from the other 

market·driven factors in the e.isting fee formula. it acts to significantly reduce the 

fee 

Managemenr 

ulumately 

Current 

calculated. 

Formula 

See: 

Keeps 

U.S. 

Grazing 

General 

fees 

Accounting 

Low, GAO/RCED-91-185BR 

Office, ~ 

(June 1991). wh1ch predicted future fees declines at page 21; Champney et al. (1992) 

grazing fee policy paper, which predicts that fee may go to "floor" ($1.35/AUM) in 

1994. 

' 1992 appraised value for Area 1 (Dakotas and Nebraska) was $10.13; Area 2 

(Kansas. eastern New Mexico and ea.o;;tern Colorado) was $7.63; Area 3 (Montana, 

eastern Wyoming, central Colorado and central and northern New Mexico) was 

$8.15; Area 4 (Washington. Oregon, Idaho, eastern Utah, northern California. 

southwe>tern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado) was $6.39; Area 5 (Nevada 

weSiern U1ah Amona, southwestern New Mexico and California desert) was $5.66; 

and Area 6 (central and muthern California) was $6.91. Under Modified Market 

Value Fee S!"\tem def>Crihcd !Q86 Grazinll Fee Review and Evaluation Repon (at 

page 38) and 1'1'1: Graz!O~ Fes Rev~ew and Evaluation Update Report (at page 39), 

by Secretarie' of Interior and Agriculture and used as the basis of H.R. 643, the 

gra2ing fee would he approximately ten percent less than lowest Pricing Area 

appraised value" 

' Fee to be determined by formula to determine "Fair Market Value" using the 

"Forage Value Index· computed annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

times the "Apprai;ed Ba.<e Value· on a "westwide basis" and adjusted for advanced 

payments and mdexed to 1993. Increases would be limited to no more than 33 

percent per year. See: H.R 643, Section L 

6 
34 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mike. 

We are pleased to welcome Congressman Skeen. 

Your statement will be placed in the record in its entirety, Joe. 

Please proceed with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE SKEEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. SKEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity. 

First of all, I believe it is appropriate that this issue be resolved 

here in the authorizing committee and not in an appropriations bill. I appreciate your efforts to move this debate back to the authorizing committee because I think it is a matter that should be 

discussed here fully. 

If you want to talk about fair market value, where is the market? 

There is no market for these public lands because they are interspersed and almost unmanageable from the standpoint of, could 

you isolate the public lands away from the/rivate lands or the 

State lands that they are intermixed with an try to come up with 

a market and establish a market value? And the way to establish 

a market value is to put them up for sale. 

That has been done in the history of this country, when they lifted the moratorium on land sales and some of these lands were sold 

to private individuals, with me being amongst them. We bought them, and we bought them on the open market, but then there is 

no market for them as leased lands at all. 

That is the basic flaw in the philosophy of the people who are 

saying we are going to save a lot of money, because they are not 

going to save a lot of money because they can't retrogress the entire system and get back to something called a market-based system, because that isn't the way it was designed, that isn't the way it evolved, and they should know better. This stack of documents 

that you see here is replete with mistakes. They even contradict 

their own data in many cases. 

More than a third of the land in New Mexico is Federal lands. 

Many of the ranchers in the State depend on the Federal leases to 

provide a viable base for livestock operations. 

I continue to support the Public Lands Improvement Act, PRIA, 

where Congress expressed its desire to implement a grazing fee formula that would prevent economic disruption of the western livestock industry. It was in the public interest to implement a formula 

that reflects annual changes in the cost of production, and that is 

what the formula that we are using today does. If the beef market 

goes up, fees on these lands go up, notwithstanding some of the 

statements that have been made earlier. 

Again I want to stress that an arbitrary increase would effectivefy end grazing on public rangelands, because right now you are 

walking right on the borderline of the economic abyss as far as 

these grazing fees are concerned. If Federal land is priced out of 

reach, such operations will immediately go out of business. 

That is why you have such large holdings among some of the big 

corporations that have been cited here time after time. It is because most of those folks were lenders of money to people who had 
35 

the grazing leases, and had to assume them when they went out 

of business. 

Lending institutions lend money based on the long-term tenure 

provided oy the PRIA formula, and they will call in their loans if 

that security is removed. Without the ability to finance a loan, livestock operators will not stay in business. Property values will be 

greatly reduced, which in turn will adversely affect the bonding capacity of the counties in these western States. 

There seems to be a misconception that these ranchers and farmers who graze on BLM lands are the beneficiaries of extreme 

wealth. I have been a rancher most of my life, and this is just not 

the case. Almost 90 percent of the permittees are small or medium 

operations and family-owned, and provide the family's sole source 

of income. That average income runs around $17,000 a year. 

According to research conducted at Western New Mexico University, if the grazing fees went up to $4.45 per animal unit month, 

all of the small ranchers, which make up 60 percent of the ranchers in this area, and part of the medium ones would go out of business. In addition, I urge you to listen closely to Dr. John Fowler 

of New Mexico State University, who will present further testimony which validates the severe impact that any arbitrary increase 

will have on New Mexico. 

Finally, I want to assure my colleagues that what is needed-I 

am not here to try to fight for lower grazing fees-what I think is 

needed is a formula that offers ranchers fair and stable grazing fees under the conditions within which they have to operate, with 

their lands interspersed and their improvements that they paid for 

and some of the other assets that they have contributed to the system. I believe on most of the public lands ranchers would have no 

objections to paying higher grazin~ fees if an increase was accompanied by improved market conditions. The best way to do this is 

to retain the current fee formula or something near that approach. 

That is the end of my statement. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Joe, for your comments and statements. 

Congressman Synar pointed out the stack of documents in front 

of him, and said that they were not dis~uted. I would say they 

were probably not successfully disputed. I think members of the 

committee would be remiss m not observing what has been, I 

think, some contentious responses to the documents. But, you know, it isn't just that there has been disagreement. 

My colleague from Oregon, Congressman Smith, here stated disagreement, with the CBO and OMB studies, in terms of what the 

amounts of dollars that would be raised would be. They disagree 

with all of the 7 or 8 GAO reports. I don't know about the latest 

one that is out. I received a preliminary report on it last night, 

Congressman Synar, but I suspect that there will be some disagreement or questionin~ of it. · They disagree With the review and evaluations of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior, the original report in 1985 and 

the update in 1992. They don't agree with the Inspector General 

report that came out last year, and I guess that they obviously are 

in dis~eement with former Secretary Lujan. 

I don t know what the disagreement is with Secretary Babbitt, as 

he hasn't come forward with his reform proposal yet, but I think 
36 

we know what the outlines of it are going to be, at least. We know 

what their position is, obviously, and that is to substantially increase grazing fees, perhaps with a two-tiered system. 

It isn't just a matter of one or two issues, and these are obviously done by objective sources. I know there are some scientists, some 

range specialists and others, that have raised points of contention 

and reflect a different attitude with regard to this issue. 

All of us, I think, understand the importance of this issue, not 

necessarily its importance from the standpoint of having the BLM 

and the other land agencies pay their way in terms of the improvements and activities. Obviously there are continuing indications of 

a higher-cost service; in other words, that these services end up 

costing more than they can recoup in revenue. That is basically 

what we are getting in terms of allocation. 

I think the recent report that both the Inspector General and the 

report that Congressman Synar called for is indicating that. That 

is the issue of this accounting mechanism, that we are spending a 

lot more money in terms of managing it than we are actually recouping. That is okay just so long as we understand the positive 

aspects, because as they go through the reports they find that often 

services are being credited to other values that in fact aren't the 

case. They principally accrue to the benefit of range management 

for grazing purposes. 

So I think really our concern is to try and put this on a path of 

certainty, predictability, and I hope that this year we can bring 

this matter together and do so. 

I don't want to hold my colleagues up here that are here today. 

I would simply point out that this livestock grazing in the western 

States covered by this formula represents a small portion of what 

is in livestock production, in both cow-calf and sheep utilization. 

For some States, I have been surprised to notice how small. I 

was surprised to notice, for instance, how Wyoming had such a 

small amount of actual grazing activities that go on. One of the 

States most dependent on public land grazing was Arizona. I know 

that generally they are key lands, but they are not as important 

as others. I will share that with my colleague from Wyoming, certainly. 

In any case, you have examined the various bills. I propose providing the Departments of Agriculture and Interior with authority 

to offset credits against the larger fee, whatever the fee might be 

set. I would set it, of course, based on the Interior and Agriculture 

evaluation and report, based on the system which we call specifically Modified Market Formula. Modified Market Formula is what 

I use, setting up credits. 

Ralph, do you think that is a viable approach, to set that up? I 

know it isn't in the initial legislation you introduced. You don't 

have the credit element in it. 

Mr. REGULA. I think we have to recognize the multiple-use factor 

here. Therefore, some type of credit would be equitable. The thing that puzzles me is that no one has ever quite explained to me why State lands and private lands are worth so 

much more than Federal lands. Maybe there is a reason, but the 

beef that goes to market, whether it comes from any of the three, 
37 

is getting the same price, and I would be interested if somebody 

could explain why those other lands aren't more valuable. 

Mr. VENTO. I am sure you will get some questions on it, since 

you invited them. 

But the question I asked about the credit issue with regard to 

this, Congressman Synar, what about the administrative difficulty 

of such a credit, if I can be the devil's advocate with my own bill? 

Mr. SYNAR. I think the report I issued today kind of shows you 

the fact that we don't have a basic inventory of the improvements 

that have been made since 1987. In order for an incentive or credit 

program to work, Bruce, I think you have to have a 

demonstratable, measurable, substantial improvement program that can be put in place, and from the report I am issuing today 

that doesn't appear to be the case. So yes, maybe credits and contributions should be taken into account, but only if we can account 

for them in our measurement. 

Mr. VENTO. I agree that is a concern. One of the accounting problems I have is demonstrated by the fact that recently I received a 

copy of the Elko Daily Free Press from Elko, Nevada, where in fact 

they report the District 1 Grazing Board voted in December to distribute $200,000, the bulk of the district's treasury, to members of 

the district-so they gave it back to themselves without any type 

of requirements as to improving or enhancing the range. 

Of course I am not suggesting it is illegal. I am just suggesting 

that the 12.5 percent receipts returned simply were distributed, as 

if they were cash bonuses, to those that had paid them in. So not 

only do you have a grazing fee that has actually been reduced this 

year to $1.85 per AUM, but in fact they have rebates going on 

within the context of it, and so you can actually knock that down, 

at least in this instance in Nevada, by another 25 cents per AUM 

or so, for that particular year, whenever they received it. 

This may not be the practice in many areas, but it is possible 

while these grazing boards, which have been set up by executive 

order, are maintained. In the bill I have, and in the bill that Congressmen Synar and Regula have introduced, we would end them 

and that would eliminate this particular thing. They wanted to 

take the money and use it to fight the national government on 

property rights issues in the national courts. Now in my judgment, 

I think it is a legitimate right to do this. I don't know that they 

ought to be using these particular fees. 

So when we talk about accounting and the probability of having 

credits, the reason I bring this up is because, if we are going to get 

into that type of system, I know it is my hope that we can work 

something out because this would help address the concerns of 

some about increases in fees. We are going to have to address this 

type of problem. I don't think it is going to be a subterfuge, in 

which we are going to have the money then distributed back in 

such a way and/or used for nonrelated issues. 

It is interesting, as you read the cast of characters in Elko, Nevada, they are people that have appeared before the Committee. 

They are not names that are unfamiliar to the members of the 

Committee in terms of having been here. So I feel like we are really on top of the issue. 
38 

I would ask unanimous consent to put that article in the record 

and share it with my colleagues that are present here who may have an interest in such. 

[The article follows:] 
39 

G razmgutnct: · d' · J f). I 'o/ 1' ~ 

Drought, Del Papa cited 

as hoard drains account Kember~ cl the District One Gru· Joined 111 Clll!' Gardner llld Von 

Inc Board 'fOCed Sallll'da7 to dlstri· Sorea.se~~, 'nlted ICIInst the dbbursebute ~ - llle bulk of the diJ. ment Saturda;y. DQ1 llid die 

lric:t's trwu17 -to members ot llle droudlt wiU eo &QJ SOODet or later, 

district. The movt ns done u ID but lhe t'ederali<lftrllllleDt IDd the 

llllt111DC1 mWIIl't. with board people who want l'allcllers off the 

Chalrmu llarve111an!e;, ciliDC the Lind will aol Da.bl Slid the mODI!1 

leucth1 drouchL lhould be used to IIcht In court fbr 

Board members abo I!Oied the Ne- property rights. Vot!Dc fbr the dlstri· 

ftda AttDruer GeDml F'rallkl Sue buUoa of llmds were Bob Reed. DeDel Papa's omce hu beta askiltc ror loyd Satterthwaite. Rhoads. Charlie 

minute.s ot boanlmeelincs ud llllk· Vu Norman ud Bob Wri&hL Barlles Inc other ill~uiria ud Barnes lndl· llll1J mes In ease ol1 Ue. 

c:at.ed that li the board were to let Gardner said the moner lhould be 

the moner sit Ia llle but much loa- used fbr I'IDCe impnm!llleats, nlher 

cer. It could be mat.ehed by the s1ate llwl drou&ht reUe( but Barnes raid 

per11111e111. (ew reques1a ID llmd such fmpmeBoard member Deu Rhoads. 1 meats are received by the board. 'nle state sea.uor. ~~feed. DOtlnc most dlslric:t remves &ppronmateb' Western states 11R similar llmds Cor $130.000 a 7W' and the ~ had 

roads ud schools. The puiDI diJ. ruched S290.000 prior to Satu:daT• 

tric:t's revenues now ll'o111lllt crWuc actions. Van Normu llid 1111 dUDtees paid to the ~eral pm!!'llllleDt cult to illlpi'Oft the l'lllce d111 to bJ llvest«.i operators I'UIIIIiDC cattle BlJl n&ulalians. For example, he 

and sheep on luds adJDlnist.ered by said, a tiDL\her can\ build 1 water 

die U.S. Bureau ot Land !l.an.ace- pipeline lmlSI BLil 11'0111111 lllllesa meat ud U.S. Ford Servi1:11. 'nlat he l&l'lle5 to clve the BLil a portion rte Is $lJIZ per aalmal llllit month ol the water. 

<AUMl. One Atnl equals one cow vu Norman's polat ns emplla- ud call 011 the ruce for o11e month, med later ta the meet!Dc wt1ea a or lift sheep fbr one month. 'nle rilo- BIM represeatatift told the bovd It 

aer Is se.ut to the federal ~ would need an emiroamelllal- meat. llld W percent II retumed to meat. tacludlnc an uchaeolocic:al 

the various uariDC dlstric:ts. District ll.lml)', before it could 111.1ta11 a c:a1t1e 

One Includes Elb CoaiiiJ IDd pans pard 011 a road In 1111bJ Valier. 

ot Eureka IDd Lander Cowltles. Ill addiUOD ID the lllllelPDC7 1b 

Ill Nencla. l!l.ose ftmds are to be triblllioa. the board 'llled to apend used fbr rup illlp~VVU~e~~t& - al· $30.000 011 predalor C1C1111r01 1111C1 

!houCh tl!ere - prvrisiou 1bt $1J1110 011 th.t c:altle pant ill BuiJJ 

emeq;eDCJ dbbunemenll IIsch as Valle)', wllere ranchers complatned wu done Satunll:r. AD ll'l'llllltDt de- tollristl were leaviDC p1.es open llld 

w:loped ill111b'- whether the - wild horses searchiJic tor !bod were lltJ could be 1ISed ID hire la~rs to nnderi.IIC onto pastll.res. Derrill f'l7, 

n,bt the federsl comnmeoL 'lbe .,.. contractor ror predator control. llld 

Jllllllllll stemmed ll'oiD a request by nearly 2$1 coyote;, haft been tilled 

laWJerJ IW W4QH ~bit ror the 10 rar this rear Mand lhetre still aw- S700.000 dbtribllted S.turdiJ. A - ftl1 tblet.• Buaters ill aln:nA toot Jorib' cllhe board 10led dowu the 1,435 ot the eoyotes while IDDther 

proposal. 1.000 were tilled trom the crouad. 

Board member Demar Dahl. , Fry said it eost about $11 a bud tD 

e!ko DAtLY f/~t R~.ss 

£/to/ ;1J£vA04 ~ .101 R'iJ,. 
40 

Mr. VENTO. We really appreciate, though, Congressman Skeen, 

your response and interest in working on this. I know you have 

been positive, and the Appropriations Committee members, two 

members have said that your help has been real. I would like to 

try and solve it through the authorizing process, but I will tell you 

I am at a point where we have tried in good faith to do it this way, ~~~to~b~~~~~~~~to~ 

the path-I think it is a close call on appropriations here with 

what we do in terms of fees in this particular instance. Then we 

have to work with our colleagues. to get the job done. 

So, I am willing to work but I am not going to become subject 

to tactics that simply result in a dead end. So often in the Senate 

it seems to me that these issues end up with one or two Senators. 

I am not so worried about a filibuster as I am one or two Senators 

alone knocking the issue off of the agenda, because in dollars it 

may not have a large effect but I think in terms of range management it has a profound effect on a significant amount of Federal 

acreage that we are managing. While there may be improvements, I think we want to try and accomplish an ideal management, not 

just an adequate management of tl:iose resources. 

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if I could just comment, one of the 

things that troubles me on the appropriations side, we s~nd $73 

million on BLM management of lands and get a return of $27 million, $5 million of which goes to the States. It doesn't seem to make 

sense in terms of managing Federal dollars to do so. 

And one other comment you mentioned about credits. The study 

of the Forest Service indicates that the average expenditure is 17 

cents by the permittees ~er animal unit. Certalnly that is not adequate, or doesn't recogruze the value they are getting in the low 

AUMfee. 

Mr. VENTO. It is especially disturbin~ when you provide the dollars to go back. First of all, the allocation question in terms of the 

overall cost to BLM. Then when you allocate the dollars back at 

12.5 percent for the idea of range improvement, and you find it 

being use to perpetuate property rights cases that are unrelated to 

the issue of improving range management, it is disturbing. They 

are more a private interest than they are of a public nature or 

dealing with the nature of enhancing range. Or when you just find 

simply the distribution ~ it back as a rebate, as it were, in Nevada, that I think undercuts the entire credibility of any type of a 

rebate program. 

In the one instance I am very disturbed to recognize this. We had 

had suspicions before. I think, as we go through the whole record 

here, we can find a good case to first of all get back into a multipurpose type of BLM land management boards, and to address reconstituting how we deal with this 12.5 percent. I think through 

this credit s;ystem, with adequate accounting, we could probably do 

a lot better JOb. 

I especially wanted to call this to r,our attention, Congressman Regula, on the Appropriations Comnnttee, and others that are interested in this matter, and hope that we can resolve it. But my 

time has long expired. Congressman Hansen, are you ready? Congressman Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
41 

I don't really like to be on the other side of an issue with Ralph 

Regula or Mike Synar. I have the greatest respect for both of these 

gentlemen, and they have always been shown to be very respected 

and fine people to deal with. 

However, I have to say in listening to the testimony I feel a certain thing missing regarding the feeling that we may have for the 

people in the West. I almost wish you could come out with me to 

my district, which happens to touch Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, and 

Arizona, so you can well imagine that a lot of that is agriculture. 

Most people have been there an awfully long time. As you go to 

their ranches, you will see that they are operating on an extremely 

marginal basis. They are barely making it, many of them. Whether 

they should be in or out I guess is a debate for another day, but 

they are having a very hard time now. 

The cattlemen out there tell me that they are going to lose 70 

percent of them if that is the case. Well, maybe we could argue 

they ought to be in something else. I don't know if I like that argument, but I guess some people would argue that way. 

It is a little different than in some of the other areas we have. 

Ralph, I was pleased to see that you talk about multiple use of the 

ground. I am glad that concept is there. I think it is very important. However, the multiple use of the ground in Utah and the 

western States today is substantially different than it was 200 

years ago, whenever the pioneers went into those areas. 

I almost think if we are going to be fair with this thing, we ought 

to look at multiple use of everybody who uses the private groundthe guy who fishes and hunts like I do, the backpacker, the birdwatcher, the four-wheeler, all of those people-if we want to bring 

it up, because we are never ~oing to make that thing y.ou b. rought 

up about the price of what 1t costs the BLM and what they get. 

Their testimony was it was $2.18 per AUM, the last time they were 

here, if you look just at that particular part. But an awful lot of 

people use the public land that didn't used to use it, and it seems 

like someone should have the opportunity to get some benefit out 

of it. 

So, I honestly think you should give some real thought to this industry that is going down. We won't get our $18 million. It will be 

substantially less than that if our figures are right, if those ranchers are all going to go under. People won't be there any longer. We 

are doing the same thing as we go away from the multiple-use concept in all of those areas. 

Kaibab Industries the other day came up and said, "We are closing two plants." Therefore, the price of lumber doubled in southern 

Utah in that area, because of all of the challenges that they have. 

This just keeps putting a stranglehold on the people that are using the public land. 

I would just hope we could come up with some solution to this. 

I think all of us are a little tired of coming to these meetings and 

going head-to-head on these particular issues. 

I appreciated the testimony of all three gentlemen, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Senator Orrin 

Hatch be included in the record. 

Mr. VENTO. Without objection, Senator Hatch's statement will be 

made part of the record. 

[Prepared statement of Senator Hatch follows:] 
42 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ORRIN HATCH 

BEFORE 7'HE 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARXS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

ON H.R. 643 AND H.R. 1602 

Mr. Chairman& I again appreciate the opportunity to provide 

comments on the issue of increasing grazing fees on public lands. 

I presented similar testimony to this committee last February in 

conjunction with a General Accounting Office report that 

recommended raising grazing fees to a level similar with those 

contained in the two bills that are the subject of this hearing, 

H.R. 643 and H.R. 1602. 

H.R. 643 and H.R. 1602 would increase grazing fees on public lands to a level equal to •fair market value.• In the case of 

H.R. 643, this increase could be as high as 33.3 percent above 

the previous year's grazing fee. At the same time, both bills 

propose significant changes to the Public Rangelands Improvement 

Act (PRIA) and effectively repeal Executive Order 12548 that 

establishes the current grazing fee formula. Because of the 

change in the PRIA formula, I cannot support these measures and 

would ask this committee to codify Executive Order 12548, rather 

than take action to negate it. 

As I mentioned on the Senate floor last month during debate on the President's fiscal year 1994 budget, proposals to increase 

grazing fees are being put forward as an easy way to generate revenue for the federal government. I am convinced, and was reminded again and again during the Easter recess, that 

increasing the grazing fees to the level authorized by H.R. 643 

and H.R. 1602 may force many Utah ranchers out of the grazing 

business. I predict that within five years, these ranchers would 

either go bankrupt or voluntarily relinquish their permits. Once 

that happens, there will be no additional revenues achieved from 

these proposals, and everyone will lose. There will be no ranchers raising livestock, and there will be no revenues coming 

into the Treasury. No one will be using the land in the future, 

at least not for grazing purposes, and this will cause serious 

repercussions throughout the entire country. It will not take 

long for consumers everywhere to know the West has been hit again by another hike in federal fees. They will simply be able to 

check their pocketbooks after a trip to the supermarket or local 

hamburger establishment. 

Considerable attention is being paid this year to the 

formula that establishes annual fees to graze on public lands as if the formula needs to be changed or modified. I do not 

subscribe to this notion because, in my estimation, this formula, as contained in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1978 as established by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 

1978, is working and reflects the appropriate fee that should be 

charged to use public lands. Those of us who represent states 

with 50-, 60-, and even 70-percent or more of land owned by the 

federal government, must continue to oppose changes in this 
43 

formula. 

The grazing formula functioning under PRIA is working 

because ranchers grazing on public lands do not own these grazing lands. Yet, it is their responsibility to manage and maintain 

these lands in a condition that is conducive to grazing activities. What this means is that the rancher is charged with 

the responsibility of providing 100 percent of the maintenance 

costs for all improvements on his grazing allotment. 

Such improvements would include springs, watering troughs, floats, and other apparatus to control water flow, pipeline 

systems used to distribute water over a large pa~ of the range, roads, fences, and cattle guards. Ranchers also supply all or a substantial portion of the funds necessary to put the water 

systems and improvements in place. ~any, if not all, of these 

improvements are used not only by domestic livestock, but also by the public and all types of wildlife. 

The costs involved with these improvements, referred to as "non-fee" costs, are not included in the calculation of the 

grazing fee formula, but they are essential to proper management 

of livestock grazing and preservation of the natural ~esources of 

this country. As I mentioned, wildlife benefits tremendously from many of these improvements, If these "non-fee• costs were included in the grazing fee formula, then the total cost to graze on public lands would be comparable to the total cost to graze on private lands, which is often cited as representative of a fair 

market value for grazing. 

When a rancher uses private land for grazing purposes, he, 

too, is charged a fee to gain access to the land. However, this 

fee is higher than the fee determined by the PRIA formula because 

the rancher is not required to pay the additional •non-fee• costs 

I mentioned above. These costs are covered by the landowner who 

is in the business of leasing his own land for grazing purposes. 

For this important reason alone, the fee to graze on public land 

is low relative to the fee to graze on private land. And, it 

should remain so. I am sure •non-fee• coets were not included in 

the original PRIA fee model to compensate for theqe expenses. 

For the record, I would like to mention the latest fee and 

•non-fee" costs that are associated with gra:~:ing livestock on private and public lands. These figures are provided by Dr. 

Darwin B. Nielsen, a professor in the Economics Department at 

Utah State University in Logan, Utah. Dr. Nielsen has done 

considerable research on this subject matter and is a recognized 

expert in this field. 

Using 1966 as his base, Dr. Nielsen has calculated the costs 

of specific items associated with grazing livestock on private 

and public lands. His analysis indicates that as of July 1992, 

the total "non-fee• costs for a private lease was $11.32. When a private fee of $4.74 per Animal Unit Month (AUK) is added to thi~ 
44 

amount, the total costs last year to graze on private land was $16.06 per AUM. This means a rancher using private acreage for 

grazing would pay this amount to the landowner. In regard to 

public lands, Dr. Nielsen's studies indicate the total •non-fee" 

costs for a lease to graze on public lands was $13.28. When the 

fee cost, as determined by PRIA, of $1.92 per AUM for both Forest 

Service lands and Bureau of Land Management lands is added to 

this figure, the total costs in 1992 to graze on public land 

equalled $15.20 per AUM. As one can see, the figures are nearly 

identical. The rancher has to bear these costs no matter which 

type of lease he obtains. Increasing the fee to graze on public lands any significant amount will substantially push the total 

public lease costs well above the private lease figure. 

A summary of Dr. Nielsen's findings for both private and 

public lands is included in two tables attached to my statement. 

To compare the costs for both types of lands, Dr. Nielsen used 

the costs of such items as lost animals, herding, water and fence 

maintenance, salting and feeding, and travel expenses. All of 

the ranchers I have talked with about these tables agree that Dr. 

Nielsen has included every major cost category that is required 

to successfully operate their ranches. In other words, he has 

not chosen categories that are extraneous or obsolete to current 

grazing operations. I urge this committee to review these tables 

carefully, and I would respectfully encourage this committee to 

invite Dr. Nielsen to testify on his findings on a formal or informal basis. To date, I have yet to see any one challenge Dr. 

Nielsen's findings or provide a differing opinion on the 

important issue of "non-fee" costs. 

Mr. Chairman, approximately 70 percent of Utah is currently 

owned by the federal government. In order to sustain a viable 

ranching operation in Utah, access to these public lands is 

necessary. In fact, it is critical to the economic maintenance 

of this industry. Agriculture is an important industry to Utah's 

total economy, and livestock production forms an integral part of 

that industry. The Utah State Department of Agriculture 

estimates that livestock production results in over $1 billion of 

economic activity every year in Utah, most of it occurring in the 

rural or remote areas of the state. An increase in grazing fees 

will have a dramatic ripple impact on Utah's economy if access to over two-thirds of Utah's land mass becomes off limits by being 

priced out of the market. And, make no mistake, consumers elsewhere in America will feel it, too. 

This ripple will go far beyond the specific numbers, which are important, but which do not fully represent all the 

casualties that will result from these two bills. I am talking 

about the lifestyle in our ranching areas, the rural areas, which 

is as much a part of American West as the waterman are in the 

East. These are real people that make their living off the land. 

They take care of the land because they know it is in their 

direct interests to be good stewards of the land. As one rancher 

from Layton, Utah told me last week, "the rancher has been close 
45 

to the range on a daily basis season after season. He has become 

intimately familiar with it, in most cases for generations, and 

he would not do anything to hurt the range.• Some have labeled 

the effort to raise grazing fees as cultural genocide, because it 

will eliminate the culture that typifies the West. It all boils 

down to this question: Are we going to ask America's small rural 

communities to give up the intrinsic beauty of this livelihood 

and lifestyle just because Congress refuses to make the hard 

choices on spending cuts? That is what we are talking about 

today - Congress' attempt to reduce the deficit by raising revenues rather than adopting spending cuts. We need to be 

sensitive to the cultural traditions that the proposed increases 

in grazing fees contained in these two bills will certainly 

threaten, if not totally destroy. 

Let me repeat, Mr. Chairman: The livestock industry is an essential economic activity to my state of Utah. A large 

increase in grazing fees will negatively diminish this industry's 

benefit to all Utahns and to all Americans. The figures just do 

not justify a huge increase in grazing fees. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to provide 

testimony at today's hearing. In addition to the summary of Dr. 

Nielsen's study, I am attaching a resolution recently adopted by 

the Utah State Legislature that supports an equitable grazing fee as embodied in PRIA. This resolution succinctly indicates the 

critical nature of this issue to my state in general and its 

locally elected officials specifically. I would be pleased to 

discuss this matter at anytime with you or any other member of 

the committee. 

Thank you. 
46 

-~F ' prmr xc r 4.ND FEF. AND NONFEE COSTS 

By: Darwin B. Nil'!lsdn 

Economics~ 

Utili State u~ Logan, tiT 84322-3530 

~ 

·--- ··• 7!ei£iinfi.Nclifee <·iftiii o, Gizii..ifFe&:mzJ.mias 

(Updated wit:h July 1992 Irrdex Numb~) 

--------~~-· ............... ·-·-_..;.-==~----

l&m ..1.2!'&... l2I1 Cil:!llg) mr'!!£!e.l 

i 

Los:r lll1im.tls moo (1.68) (1.76). c~ ..mm>kt¢""" ~ - $1.'18 

Assa:!alion. fees 

v~ 

Mo9lDg H=toci: 

~ 

Salti::g k feeding 

Trarel 

Wa= 

F= maimen.ance 

Hcx:!e CQII: 

wan:r lll3illlel!3•w:e 

Deoe!. depted.ali011 

Odr:r<:r.>Slll 

o.oa (2.00) 

o..u ('2.26) 

0.24 (2.30) 

0.46 (2.26) 

Q..56 (2.10) 

0.32 (2..18) 

o.os (200) 

0..24 (U.S) 

Q.Uj (U6) 

Q.J9 (2..28) 

o..u ('2.00) 

..U1 (2.00) 

$3.28 

Fon::.t Sc:nicc 

BLM 

(1..76) 

('2.12) 

(2 ... >1) 

(2.12) 

(1.92) 

COl) 

(1.76) 

c ~1} 

{1...:5) 

(l..Jll) 

(!..76) 

(1.76) 

1"92 FEE COSTS: 

~cdacti9n irum) 

(wage~) 

(~nr.os k ~) + 

twage .cires) 

(vr.l£" rues) I 

(amo & r;n<:kj + 

(&:eel) I 

(am:o &. truck) + 

(lllcl &. <::=g:l) 

(proCa::ri9n iro:ns) 

, .... g:s) .f 

,·vlrll~:~f~ 

(foecl') 

(wage$) " . I 

(b~ & fcm:ina') 

(p!:oJtl<:tiCw. i!cms) 

~;r=) 

':'CTAL *Cl'iF-u ·:::osT 

Sl.92/AuM 

Sl..92/ AtJJ.~ 

F= SC>Vie: - SU.:S + $1.92 "Sl5.:l!li 

BLM - S"'..3.28 + Sl.92 • SlS.:l!li 

i 

. 0.28 

- 0~ 

-l3l 

:uo 

a 2.Zl 

1.04 

- Q.28 

- 1.00 

= 031 

. Q./8 

. 0.39 

-_II& 

• 13.28 

~ wen frnm. USDA, •AgriClll:nral ?I!.,.,.,. w~on, D.c., Nationld ~..a:lll s~ s~ 

USDA, 1aly :u, :1992.. I 
47 

- ~ :&222 (jmfs\ l'm!lll!!W 

' Last 2llimal$ $031 (L68) (L76)• (~ mxfmaJs/pd;:es ~ - $l.(]g 

~tees 0.00 (2.00) (L76) ~it=} .. 0.00 

Vcterilwian G.lS (.2.26) (2.12) (~crups} il.62 

Movi!og~ock oz cz_so) {2.:3'i) (a>;::.;: k 'ttud:) + 

{wage~) - 133 

B'c::cdiut; Q.l9 (2.26) ('.!12) (v;age r.l!fs) .. OSll 

S<iu&: .t; f=ling 0.83 CUO) (1.92) (auto &: ttuct) + 

(f=i) ! •334 

"1'mvcl 0.25 CZ-18) (2.34-) (acto & tP<k) + 

(fuel "' :=m .. l.1S 

Water 0.()6 ('2.00) (1:,6) (prc.dncrib. ite=) 0.2!. 

F= m.a:mtenam:e 0~ (2.28) (lSI) (Wllgc:s) _,; 

{boll~&~ - 1Jl3 

Hon;c cost 0.10 (2.00) (LZ3) lfced} 023 

Wau:r~ 0.15 (2.28) (!..$1) (wages) -£ 

l~ &:. fc:oc:ilg) .. ll62 

Dcvd.. dcp=:iaOOD. om (2.00) (1.76) (?:c<!nctiok i.t=s) - OJ.1 

OlDer costS .!W (2.00) (1..76) ~II ill=) - .],§ 

$2.75 TO!Al ~ONF.EE (X)ST ~ l.1.32 

1992 FEE C0:."1'S: 

Prln.teFee • $4.74/AUM:(~~ eost) 

TOTAL 1992 cosn;. ~Leas:: - S'.d.:l2 + '$4.74 • 'S!.S.Il6i I 

~ rakot from USDA,·~ Pr~tes,• Wash!:ngtnn. D.C., N~.~ ~ ~ USDA. July 31, 1992. ' 
48 

%0 A COHCUii&EII'r WOLIITIOH OF THE LECISLATUU: A.llD THE GOVEli.NOI ~COtll!AC!liC 

21 COIITIWA'!!Oll OF A li'AIII. CRAZING FEE FORMtll.A FOil. COIITIWEil L!V'ESTOCX 

%2 CRAZING OH F!D!!W. LANDS. 

23 Be it re•olved by the Legi•lature of the •tate of Utah. the Cove•nor 

24 cooeurrins therein! 

25 WHEREAS a&rieulture is one of Utah's =o•t important industries; 

-2-
49 

WHEREAS livestock production is the catalyst for over $1 billion of 

2 economic activity annually which is critical to the health of our 

3 economically stressed ~ural communities; 

4 WHEREAS the federal land resource which represents nearly tva-thirds 

S of the land area of Utah plays an important part in combining enough 

6 private and public land to create economically viable ranching 

1 operations; 

8 WHEREAS the fee collected from grazing the federal lands pays an 

9 inordinately high portion of the multiple use costs of administering the 

10 public lands; 

11 WHEREAS there is tonsi•tency betYeen the economic activity on che 

12 public land •• well •• it• multiple use and the material well being of 

13 the range and the animal and plant species on it; 

14 WHEREAS contrary to popular theory if public land is left co run vild 

1S it would deteriorate over time, create fire hazards, and bring an end to 

16 species diversity; 

17 WHEREAS over several generations public lands ranchers have developed 

18 the confidence to invest in fencing, veter development, roads, and forage 

19 quality ~hich provides an outdoor experience for public use and increased 

20 vildlife populations; 

21 WHEREAS the cost of purchasing the permit and it• associated non-fee 

22 costs such as lower productivity, larger land area needs, predatory 

23 animaL los•es, and more herders need to be t&kea into account vhen 

24 comparing public land grazing fees and private land lease•; and 

·3-
50 

WHEREAS there is a movement &mona radical environmeataL aroups and 

2 some members of the United States Consress to increase the crazing fee to 

l 1e•e1s that vould seriously threaten the stability of Utah's livestock 

4 industry: 

lOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of 

6 Utah, the zovernor concurring therein, support the continuation of an 

equitable fee structure as is embodied in the Public llangeland 

8 Impcov~ent Act fee formulA tb&c pre5erves confidence and incegrit~ OYer 

9 ti=e and provides benefits to all Americans through multiple use of the 

10 federal lands including livestock gra&ing. 

ll 

l2 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be sent to the 

President of t!le ·United St.ates, the United States Se ~etary of 

13 Aariculture, the United Star.es Secretary of the Interior, the Presid~nt 

14 of the United St.ates Senate, the Speaker of the United St.ates House of 

lS Representatives and the members of Utah's congressional delesation. 

-4-
51 

Mr. VENTO. Congresswoman English? 

Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a question of a specific nature on how it deals with Arizona for either of you. Arizona has much more of an arid ecosystem 

and it takes a lot more land for cattle to graze. More of the ranchers are dependent on more public land because there is less private 

land available. 

Those two concerns to me indicate that if there is a new formula 

in place, that Arizona ranchers, even though they may be paying 

an increased fee, would have less of a competitive opportunity to 

exist. I am wondering if you can address the regional status or differences in setting up grazing fees, whatever those fees would be, 

and not having a formula that is sensitive to the idiosyncracies in 

Arizona. 

· Mr. SYNAR. Karen, I am glad you brought that up, because there 

is often a confusion about how we do these values, but an AUM is 

based upon the different terrains and situations that exist, whether 

it be in Arizona or Wyoming, and the AUM formula itself takes 

into account the amount of acreage it would take to carry one cowcalf unit. 

Secondly, when you talk about marginal ranchers, whether it be 

in Arizona, or as Mr. Hansen said, in Nevada, what I find interesting is that the formula does not take into account that we presently 

use feed, livestock feed, our feeder livestock, seed or fertilizer. The 

ranchers in Ohio and Oklahoma have to take that into account in 

their costs, but that is not taken into account as they have to pay 

their fair market value. That shows you that "these marginal people are not even" using the same types of basic costs as every other 

of the 98 percent of the livestock producers in the country. Finally, I don't think there has been anybody other than Ralph 

and I who have been more sensitive to the fact that we would run 

anybody off the rangelands. Ralph, to his credit, asked a Republican administration to run the numbers on the Synar-Regula bill 

and how many ranchers in Arizona, Wyoming, or wherever would 

be run off by this increased fee. We came down and the report is 

before you. Not one. Not one rancher would leave. Now why is 

that? 

Well, maybe you can answer this question. What is the grazing 

fee for Arizona, the State fee? 

Ms. ENGLISH. I don't have a clue. 

Mr. SYNAR. It is about five times what the Federal fee is. 

Ms. ENGLISH. On the private land? 

Mr. SYNAR. On State land. I'm sorry. In Arizona it is different, 

but in most of themMr. VENTO. If the gentlewoman would yield, Arizona mimics the 

national program. Arizona, incidentally, has 60 percent of its dependency in national public lands. Wyoming is 23 percent. 

Mr. SYNAR. Right, and Arizona is indexed. That is the unique 

part of that. In most of these the State lands, look at-just read 

them to them. 

Mr. REGULA. Colorado is $4.70; Idaho, $4.91; Montana, $4.24, 

Wyoming is $2.50; Ore~n, $2.50. 

Mr. SYNAR. Substantially greater than the Federal fee. 
52 

Mr. REGULA. Right. I don't know exactly what the multiple-use 

impact on State lands is. These would be the Federal lands, and 

that could be a factor. I think that is why it is important that this 

committee take into consideration all these. Maybe we don't have 

the perfect formula. Maybe the chairman's formula is not perfect. 

But the numbers would indicate in all these reports that the 

present formula does not represent a fair return to the taxpayers 

of the United States that own the lands. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. VENTO. Do you have further questions? 

Ms. ENGLISH. Just a brief one. I don't dispute that at all, and I 

am much more familiar with Arizona than the other lands, and I 

know of the checkerboard nature of State lands, BLM, Forest Service. 

I also know that it is much more difficult. It takes a longer time 

to grow the same kind of forage. It is a different ecosystem, and 

I want that difference to be considered when those formulas are 

adopted. 

Mr. SYNAR. It already is, because that is what an AUM is. 

Ms. ENGLISH. You used some comparisons, however, of a region that Arizona is included in, and I don't believe that in that particular region Arizona has received the sensitivity that it should have, 

just for the record. 

Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentlewoman. 

Congressman Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. I just wanted to correct a couple of things that have 

been alleged here today. First of all, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, many of us disagree with the reports that Mr. Synar has in 

front of him. I might point out that with every one of the reports from the GAO there is not a range scientist who was consulted, not 

one, so my opinion is as good as theirs. I disagree with them. 

We haven't disagreed with the Bureau of Land Management and 

the Forest Service here. They have come before this committee 

time after time opposing any change in the formula. Now that may change, but we have followed the advice of the range managers, the 

Forest Service and BLM in the past. They have always opposed 

these bills. 

I wanted to address, Ralph, the question that you raise and that 

Mike raises constantly about 2 percent only of all the livestock in 

the country graze on public lands. The problem is, you have buried 

us in percentages, and that does not accurately point out what is 

happening in the West, simply that there are only 11 western 

States that have all of the public lands or 98 percent of them, 50 

percent of all the United States marketable lands. And 40 percent 

of all cattle herds of more than 100 head are raised in the 11 westem States, if you want my numbers, and they are absolutely dependent upon public lands. 

I might mention to my good friend from the State of Idaho, 88 

percent of the Idaho cattle depend upon public forage, 88 percent 

of the livestock. Now you, by using 2 percent, seem to demean the 

dependency that we have in Arizona and Oregon and Wyoming 

upon public lands, but that is simply not true. There are huge communities, many communities, dependent upon those very grazers. 
53 

So I want to make sure we understand the critical nature of this 

to us in the West. I might just observe that I don't know that there 

is a BLM permit in Ohio or Oklahoma. I doubt it. 

I wish I were sitting where you are. It would be very easy for 

me to criticize this program, I suppose, if I didn't have any, but you 

are really inserting yourself into a question of whether or not we 

can exist in the West. That is why we are so exercised and so concerned. 

End of my question. [Laughter.] 

Mr. VENTO. If either of our witnesses have an answer to the--

Mr. SYNAR. I do. I want to first of all respond to Bob's original 

statement that no economists were used that understand rangeland. That is absolutely false, and we know that, those of us who 

have worked with GAO and directed them to go out of their way 

to do that. In fact, in the 1991 report on the current formula keeping grazing fees low, let me read you from the report, universities 

throughout the West and various interest groups. 

We also obtained assessments of the formula from a number of 

economists knowledgeable about ranching economics, State and 

Federal agency officials, livestock industry representatives, and 

representatives of environmental groups. So, Bob, that is not right. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, it is right. There is not a range scientist on the 

staff of the GAO. 

Mr. SYNAR. On the GAO, but that doesn't mean that they don't 

go consult with them, Bob. That is exactly--

Mr. SMITH. I said there is not a range scientist on the GAO staff. 

That is what I said. 

Mr. SYNAR. I think it is a little bit disingenuous for Republicans 

who want to cut budgets back in the legislative and executive 

branches, then to say that there are not people on those various 

agencies, to then come in here and argue that. 

But let me go to the second thing. Let's look at who these grazers 

·are. The 500 largest permit holders out of the 23,600 in the West 

control 46.5 percent or 76 million total acres. 

Now who are these fine people? They are oil companies like 

Union Oil, Getty Oil, Hunt Oil, Texaco, major utilities like 

PacifiCorp, Utah Power and Light Company. We have got Zenchiku 

Land, a livestock company out of Dillon, Montana, and Japan; feed 

lot operators; major insurance companies like Metropolitan and 

John Hancock. We have got one guy, Daniel Russell, out there in 

California. We have talked about him before. He controls 5,632,502 

acres, which is larger than the State of Massachusetts. These 

aren't Ma and Pa Kettle operations we are talking about. 

We basically have 2 percent of the industry that has this benefit, 

and of that 2 percent, 2 percent control half the land. So making 

this argument that it goes to the values of the West just doesn't 

match up with the statistics, which are indisputable. 

Mr. SMITH. Eighty-eight percent of the people, Mike, are small 

agriculturalists. Eighty-eight percent of the BLM users are small 

people. Now you are using one side of the argument and I am using 

the other, obviously, but the facts are you can't disguise, using the 

great oil companies, using those numbers, you can't disguise the 

fact that 88 percent of these people are small agriculturalists. 
54 

Mr. SYNAR. Bob, Ralph and I offered you six years ago, five years 

ago, four years ago, three years ago, two years ago, one year ago, 

a deal on this very issue, separating small and large farmers on 

this, and you have turned us down every year. You have taken the 

route you don't want to do anything. So, again, it is disingenuous 

for you to come in here and argue for the small farmer and rancher, when we both offered you that deal six times. 

Mr. SMITH. I am delighted for the offer, frankly. I thought we got 

rid of that idea, but of course you folks like to soak the rich, and 

so you want to demean anybody that grows. 

Mr. SYNAR. Is that directed at me, or at me and Ralph? I think 

Ralph might want to say something. [Laughter.] 

Mr. VENTO. Ohio seems kind of quiet. 

Mr. SMITH. I thought we defined that as socialism somehow. 

Mr. VENTO. Are you a socialist, Ralph? [Laughter.] 

Mr. REGULA. I think the issue here is fairness. Certainly you can 

say we have no BLM lands in Ohio, but we have taxpayers, we 

have citizens of the United States, and they own the land just as 

much as those who live in the West, and therefore they are entitled 

to a fair return. They are the ones that are paying the taxes, along 

with the westerners, to support BLM. 

Now the Forest Service and the BLM in their report stated that 

no one would be put out of business, and they are friendly to the 

ranchers, they are friendly to the permittees. And in testimony in 

front of our Interior Appropriations, reflecting the language that 

was included, I think it was in the 1991 appropriation, they said 

that their studies indicated that no one permittee would be put out 

of business. 

And I think the formula we had represented fairness. That is the 

real issue here this morning, not rich-poor, big-little. It is what is 

fair to the owner of the land, namely the people of the United 

States, and what is fair to the permittee, and I think the present formula does not represent equity. 

Now if this committee can construct a formula that achieves the 

objective of fairness, great. That is really the responsibility of the 

committee. We have put out one plan; the chairman has put out 

another. Perhaps some of you have another. I know that some of 

the western Members have said to me privately that we recognize 

that there ought to be some change, and the same thing is true on 

the mining reform program. 

But I am afraid if we open the door, it will get wider than we 

want it to happen. That is what the legislative process is all about, 

to achieve that objective of treating all the parties equitably. 

Mr. VENTO. I thought he had yielded, but I like the opportunity 

to get my friends together to discuss these issues. [Laughter.] 

Frankly, more positive results I think come out of this, provided 

that we can get 1t accomplished and get the facts out. You know, 

I was looking on my background sheet here and the updated agency report, and realized in the western States that are affected by this, they raise about a quarter million livestock, if they have that 

many. I guess it must be in AUMs. I don't know about the grazing. 

But they are saying that about 10 percent of the western livestock 

operators graze on Federal allotments, or about 25,000 western 
55 

producers. Nationally, they represent only about 3 percent of the 

industry. So I think sometimes it gets pushed a little bit out of proportion 

in terms of its importance because so many of these lands are marginal lands. I think we all understand that agriculture and ranching have 

been in trouble economically, and that nobody wants to visit further economic problems on folks, but I think we are concerned 

about the overall range management. We are not going to solve the 

budget problems on this issue. Now let me recognize the gentlewoman from Utah, Ms. Shepherd. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. Thank you. Welcome. This is my first grazing hearing, and I think Karen 

and I may be the only two here that are having this experience for 

the first time. 

I have got two issues, the one being how much does the land cost 

and how does that relate to the private land and the State land? 

In Utah, for example, there is also a difference between what the 

State charges and what the Federal land is. 

There is also the other issue of the improvement of the range, 

and keeping it of a quality that is sustainable for both wildlife and 

cattle. And what I have noted as I have started to work with this 

is that there is a huge difference in people's view of this. 

On the one hand you hear that the range is in better shape than 

it has ever been. On the other hand you hear that it is in worse 

shape than it has ever been. I would like to know how you see that 

dispute, and why you think those differences arise, and what is the 

best criteria by which to judge the quality of the land. 

Mr. REGULA. We get into this in the Interior Appropriations 

Committee with the BLM testimony. It probably varies from place 

to place because the ecological conditions, as was pointed out by 

the gentlelady from Arizona, are at great variance. I visited some 

of these places in the West. I have been on ranches and I grew up 

on a farm and lived on a farm. I can see the necessity for that. So 

there is not one blanket statement you can make about it. 

The mission of BLM, of course, and the Forest Service, who control most of these lands, is to have a continued improvement of the 

land, not only for the permittee but for the development of wildlife. 

I think, as was pointed out by one of the members of the committee, there has been an explosion of multiple use on public lands. 

I used the figure that the Forest Service has twice the visitor days 

of the Park Service, and most people are astounded to hear that, 

but it is because they have large acreages and because there is 

great interest on the part of people who want to hunt, fish, bird 

watch, camp, you name it, many of which they can't do in the 

parks. 

So we need to strike a balance here, and I recognize, having been 

there, that the multiple use is a burden. I am not sure whether the 

States place the same burden on their lands. Maybe some of you 

could tell me that, because that may be a factor in the differential 

in what they get versus what the Federal Government gets. But I 

believe that is something this committee needs to address with a 

little more of a fact basis. 
56 

Mr. SYNAR. In all the reports we have, we know two things. One, 

we know that 60 to 70 percent of the land in the West is classified 

as poor or unsatisfactory. That is an indisputable fact. Has there 

been improvement? I suspect there has, but we may never know. 

That is why this report which I am issuing today tells us how difficult it is to see what that improvement is, 'because the BLM can't 

account for half of the money that we have put in it, and therefore 

we don't know if the improvements are being made. 

When you can only Identify 2 of the 1,353 projects where the 

money went, how do you know if improvements have been made? 

But I will grant that some improvements could have been made, 

but the classification of all the Federal lands is, 60 to 70 percent 

of them are in poor or unsatisfactory conditions, which sars massive improvement is necessary. The only way to do that is mcreasing the fees to do that. 

Mr. SMITH. Will the gentlelady yield to me for a moment? 

Ms. SHEPHERD. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. I want to quote directly to her 

question from Mr. Penfold, who is the assistant director of the Bureau of Land Management, May 12, 1992, in testimony before this 

committee directly to your point and for the record. I am quoting him. 

"In 1991 the BLM classified over 60 million acres, accounting for 

35 percent of rangeland, in good to excellent condition; 61 million 

acres, about the same amount, 61 million acres, accounting for another 36 percent, in fair condition; only 26 million acres or 15 percent in poor condition. The remainder has not been classified." 

For the record, those are the facts. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. Can I just follow this a minute? 

Representative Synar, the dispute here then is that you are saying that the BLM fi~es--

Mr. SYNAR. That 1s the same agency that doesn't have an inven· 

tory of what they have done. How in the heck can they come up with these numbers? They don't even know where the money they 

got to spend went. It is a bit hard for an agency to come here and 

tell us they have classified lands when they can't even account for 

the money. 

The fact is that the BLM's published range report, May 1991, 

disputes the testimony that Mr. Penfold has cited and Mr. Smith 

continues to cite. The report by their own agency disputes those 

numbers. 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentlewoman would yield to me at this point, maybe just to spread it a little, I think the concern here is that we 

have had a number of reports on specific features of BLM lands 

such as riparian or desert areas. I think it is recognized generally that the overall improvement of the condition of most of the range 

starting from the mid-1930s has been rather steady, and we would 

hope that it would continue. 

There are some problems with drought and other issues, but I 

think the major concern is, if we look at our critical features like 

riparian areas and other features that are so necessary for diversity, biological diversity and so forth, these are the areas that get impacted. These are the areas that get impacted, and there are a 

number of reports that have been put out on those. 
57 

And clearly part of it gets back to the appropriation process, part 

of it gets back to what the cost is. So I would just suggest that 

sometimes the numbers-and I don't want to get into a debate, we 

obviously want to encourage a positive response from BLM and the 

Forest Service-but that the BLM in fact in those reports has done 

a poor job in terms of riparian areas and the impact of grazing, wliereas the Forest Service has done a better job. It isn't perfect 

yet, I think there is something still to be desired. 

I think this is what is critical. We are talking about these areas 

in terms of the amount and monitoring the overgrazing and the effect on various allotments and whether they are able to actually deliver on these issues, so I would hope we could keep that in 

focus. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Thomas? 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, sir. We have gotten away from the 

questions here, I see, but one of the problems in finding a resolution is that we seem to have a completely different view of the 

world and S\lpport it with facts. I think there are some myths floating around. You probably don't think they are. I do. 

Mr. Synar, you have your famous 500 chart here. The Cattlemen's Association did look at that, I understand? Spot-checked 25 

of the 500 permittees that you mentioned. Half of them were in the 

wrong State. The one that I am familiar with in my State was 

overstated to the extent that actually it was 20 percent of what 

was listed. 

So you can use those figures if you want to, I suppose, but it is 

kind of too bad that you don't use figures that--

Mr. SYNAR. That 1s BLM public agency data. It is not mine. It 

is your agency. 

Mr. THoMAS. I use the figures that are accurate. 

Mr. SYNAR. Tell your own BLM that you were in control of for 

12 years. 

Mr. THOMAS. Where did you get the 60 percent in poor shape? 

Mr. SYNAR. That is from the BLM data, from their own reports that you have been in charge of for 12 years. 

Mr. THOMAS. It isn't from the BLM. I have got it right here in 

front of me. It is right here. 

Mr. SYNAR. BLM published range. 

Mr. THOMAS. They said they are in good shape. Mike, you don't 

have those figures now. Well, let's go on. 

Mr. Chairman, you talked about the importance of 66 percent of 

the cattle in Wyoming at one point or another being on public land. 

Let me share with you one of the reasons why it is a little different. 

Much of Wyoming grazing is on public land in the summer and 

you have to feed them in the winter, so there is a relatively short 

time in which you use the public range. I am interested in the multiple-use aspect. It is pretty obvious that wildlife does not exist on 

public lands all year round, and someone has to feed them in the 

winter for the most part, and often the places where you raise hay and where you have water are on public lands. So it is really important that we try to do something that is based on the facts, and 

it is really tough to have total differences in view. 
58 

Let's talk about the stewardship of BLM. Whose responsibility is 

it to monitor grazing? What does that have to do with fees, Ralph? Mr. REGULA. What does the monitoring of grazing have to do 

with what? 

Mr. THoMAS. With the fees. 

Mr. REGULA. Of course I think that the way the land is used is 

an important element in determining a fee structure, and I am the 

first to recognize that the multiple-use burden has to be taken into 

consideration in trying to establish a fee schedule. 

No one has yet answered my question, and that is, do the States 

have the same multiple-use concept of the lands that they lease as 

does the Federal Government? If so, if there were not that activity by the State, why then there would be some explanation for the differences in value. 

Mr. THOMAS. There really aren't in our State. They are basically exclusive uses. Furthermore, in the information here it takes 8.8 

acres on public land generally to equal the forage on 3.8 acres on 

State land. So you have got a lot better productivity and there are 

some management costs that are different there, you know. I know 

you understand the difference in those things. 

Mr. REGULA. Frankly, from the appropriations standpoint we are 

pressed on the allocation of resources. I think that probably any fee 

mcreases will generally get plowed back into range management. 

Mr. THOMAS. That may be, but my point is this. The management of the land by the BLM, which they are statutorily directed, 

to do, has little if anything to do with the fee. If the place is· 

overgrazed, then it ought to be changed. Mr. REGULA. I am no fan ofBLM management. 

Mr. THOMAS. Furthermore, let me make one more comment. 

Mr. SYNAR. Do you want an answer or not? 

Mr. THoMAS. I want to finish my question, if you don't mind. 

The other is that there is no shortage of BLM folks in Wyoming, about 700. Now if you would like to comment, Mr. Synar, I would 

be happy to have it. 

Mr. SYNAR. Well, great, Craig. Let's talk about it. First of all, the 

published report that I was citing is "Range of our Vision," May 1991, where they cite 60 percent in poor or unsatisfactory condition. I would be interested to see where your source is. 

Mr. THOMAS. I have it right here. 

Mr. SYNAR. If you would like to cite that, cite where it says that 

is not true. 

Mr. THoMAS. Page 2. 

Mr. SYNAR. With respect to why it is important that the BLM's 

management policies be taken into account, if we truly believe a 

program ought to pay-as-you-go, if BLM can't account for the improvements that they are responsible for and manage those, and 

secondly they can't tell us whether or not they are making 

progress, then we will never know what the fair market value of 

the land is if we are going to go as pay-as-you-go. Management policies are the integral juncture in this thing, ana if we are committed to the principle of P.ay-as-you-go which most of you all endorse, then they are the cnticallink in there, so that we will know 

exactly how much ranchers and farmers should pay. 

Mr. THoMAS. I understand, and I agree with that. 
59 

Mr. VENTO. Let's see if I understand this. He is saying 60 percent is in fair or poor condition. You are saying 60 percent is. One 

comes from a 1990 BLM figure and one comes from a 1991 figure. 

It sounds like it is going downhill fast. [Laughter.] 

Mr. THOMAS. This is called "Public Rangelands," 1990. 

Mr. SYNAR. I am quoting 1991. 

Mr. VENTO. I guess we are going downhill. 

Mr. THoMAS. It says respected authorities, Mr. Synar. Apparently respected authorities in range sciences have stated that public rangelands are in better condition than ever before in this century. Well, now--

Mr. VENTO. So much for the BLM, I guess. We are on our own, 

guys. 

Mr. THOMAS. The point, I guess, of this whole thing is, we really 

have to come together on some facts, because we just can't keep 

going on, like this. You can have your own opinions, and we won't 

agree on that, but you can't have your own facts. 

Mr. SYNAR. Craig, on that I absolutely agree with you. Let me 

first remind you, because you are on the Committee of Government 

Operations, I have given this challenge every year for six years 

here on the floor or anywhere else I have debated any of you all. 

If you can show us where these facts are wrong, I will change, but, 

in the six years we have debated this, not one shred of evidence 

has ever been presented that we didn't then look at, analyze and 

come back with, that disputes anything that is in here. 

Second, and most important, what we have here is not a situatioh where we can continue to debate the facts. It is over. My recommendation to you western Republican Congressmen is to sit 

down with us and work this thing out, and quit fighting over this 

thing of whether or not they are going to go up. They are going up. 

You can either be part of the solution or you can just walk away 

from it. I want you to be part of the solution, but I have got to tell 

you, I hate this issue. I hate coming in here. 

Mr. THoMAS. You love it. It is the biggest thing you have fourid. 

Mr. SYNAR. But I am not going to sit here and tell you. I mean, 

I do oversight. That is my job. That is what you all sent me to do. 

Everything I have done with you, it is not only with Ralph, it is 

with Bill Clinger and every member of my subcommittee, unanimous. This is not Mike Synar's fight. This is your oversight committee in a bipartisan fashion that for six years has brought you 

this. If you want it, fine. If not, fine. Let's move on. Don't beat up 

on me. Just tell me to quit doing oversight. 

Mr. THoMAS. Okay, quit doing oversight. [Laughter.] 

Mr. REGULA. Craig, I would like to make an offer to you. If you 

would like to have some questions submitted for the record when 

BLM appears before the Interior Appropriations Committee, I 

would welcome a chance to put them in the record on your behalf, 

because I think we have to clarify the facts and this would be a 

good opportunity to do so. They will be appearing before us, but I 

appreciate that. 

Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate that, and I will stop. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. LaRocco? 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
60 

To my colleagues, welcome. I don't know what suggestions you have for westam Democrats, Mike, but I think it might be the 

same thing. I was reviewing some floor statements I made last 

year. My colleagues, Karen and Karen of Utah and Arizona, have 

not gone through these hearings. 

But let me just say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, I applaud you 

for having these hearings in this committee because my frustrations last year were based on the fact that I was going to the floor 

of the House, debating this issue on the floor, and hearing about 

the debate in the Appropriations Committee rather than in the germane committee, the authorizing committee, where I thought this 

debate should have taken place in a more deliberate manner. But 

there we were on the floor again, with things going through quickly. 

My constituents were faced with a shot to the head, I thought, 

when we really hadn't figured out what the condition of the rangelands was, we hadn't really considered whether the BLM or the 

managing agencies were doing a good job and whether they had the 

resources to do a good job. So I am basically happy that we are 

back here. 

I also would observe that I think that we are part of the cleanup crew, quite frankly, of some 12 years of a bit of disinterest 

about this issue, on what was really going on out in the public 

lands States. For the record, let me say that 64 percent of my State 

is owned by the Federal Government, and 90 percent of the cattle 

raised in Idaho do find their way to public lands at one time or another. I am having trouble with the 23 percent dependency figures 

that are thrown around the committee, when 90 percent of the cattle raised in Idaho do find their way to the public lands. 

We have a joke out there that they are 20-40 cows, where they 

have to go through a 20-foot swath at 40 miles an hour to find 

enough forage just to exist out in Idaho, and there are about 3, 700 

permittees out in Idaho. That is not a lot. That is not Exxon. That 

is not Metropolitan Life. There are people like Randall Brewer, 

standing in the back of this committee room, who are family ranchers and who have been on that land for a long time. 

So I really want to get to the bottom of this issue. I am not going 

to just be a desk-pounding, finger-pointing western Congressman 

that just says "Hell, no" to this issue. I want to resolve this in the 

tradition of my former boss, Frank Church, who helped to develop 

PRIA. If it doesn't work now, if the rangelands are in a deteriorating state, if the range managers are not handling this job properly, 

then I want to get to the bottom of it. I really do. I don't want to 

be here next year. 

And I think the change of administration kind of kicks us in the 

butt a little bit and helps us down that road as a clean-up crew. 

I am not going to get into a debate with you on the figures here. 

I want good data. That is why I am glad it is here in the authorizing committee. I will do everything I can to get that data. 

I think that Exxon can take care of itself, quite frankly. I think 

they can go out and issue debt, they can go out to the capital markets if they need money, but my family ranchers can't do that, and 

I don't want to toss them off the land. I think they are good produc-
61 

era, I think that they are honorable people and they are good stewards of the land. 

And to mr, colleague, Mr. Regula, we should have a discussion 

about the differences between private lands and State lands. Out 

there we deal with this issue all the time with regard to timber 

harvests. The more favorable growing sites for timber in the State 

of Idaho are owned by Potlatch and owned by Weyerhauser and 

owned by Boise Cascade at the low elevation sites. That is why 

they keep them. That is why they manage that land in such a fashion as to have reentries into the land. 

Unfortunately, the Nation of the United States owns some of the 

lousier growing lands, and the State has more favorable lands and 

it is closer to the roads. It is not isolated. The ranchers don't have 

to put in their own improvements. So I don't want to go to the floor of the House any more and look 

at those figures, apples and oranges, between State lands, private 

lands. I don't want to be there on the floor defending Exxon. I want 

to defend the 3, 700 permittees that I think don't need a shot to the 

head. Congressman Williams and I have written to cattle ranchers 

and to cattle association people and said, "Let's go to the table." 

Let's go there, because we don't want a handout out West. We don't 

want some~ for nothing. We just want the facts. 

I know this IS more of an opening statement type question, but 

Mike and Ralph, I want to give you the opportunity at least to say what you thiri.k may have been going wrong with the administration up to this point. The reason we have this document, it seems 

to me~, and there is a lack of inventory, is because somebody hasn't 

been aoing their job. 

That is why we are here in this committee. That is why we have 

got a problem. It is because we don't have the inventory in the document. That is why I have been frustrated by going right to the 

floor of the House and trying to pass thia thing. It is why I am glad 

that it stopped in the Senate last time. 

Mr. SYNAR. I juat want to say one thing about this fact thing, because this seems to be the bone of contention today. 

You know, I and Ralph have been zealous, would be the word 

that I would describe, that we have not been playing on facts that 

were reliable. Th. at is why I commissioned, on behalf of the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee which I chair, a report by GAO which is the 1991 report in June that went back and literally took everything that had ever been written about grazing, whether 

it be academic, government, State, and they went in and interviewed 1,000 people out West. 

And they came up with the report that was supposed to end the 

debate on the facts, and the report very simply confirms everything 

that all those rQports I had stacked in front of us have said over 

and over again. This report is the culmination of trying to eliminate that debate on the facts. 

There is no debate on the facts. There is no debate on the facts. 

We are now down to cutting the deal on when these fees are going 

to go up and who is going to have to pay them. So I think we do 

ourselves a great disservice, the taxpayers, the environment and 

everybody else, the States, by continuing to think that there is a 

difference in facts. There isn't. This was signed off by every Repub69-312 0 - 93 - 3 
62 

lican and Democratic Congressman on the subcommittee and full 

committee of Government Operations. 

So let's get off the facts. Let's get back to the basics. Let's cut 

the deal. I want you at the table. I think you and Pat Williams are 

two of the most responsible Members. You have tried to come forward, you have been encouraging your ranchers to do that, and I 

think that is to be commended. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I suppose in one respect I don't have a stake in this, being from 

Tennessee, but those of us in the East are affected by what goes 

on in the West, as we are seeing now in the great increases in lumber prices and other things that are happening. And I don't want 

to see our meat prices double or triple overnight, or go way up, so 

we will be affected by this. 

But, Mike, you mentioned a while ago all these big landholders 

or these big ranchers, and you said you had offered Bob a deal for 

the last six years. AB I understand it, in this legislation that we 

are dealing with now there is no distinction or difference made between the small ranchers and the really big giants, and Larry mentioned that he didn't want to defend the Exxons, he wanted to take 

care of the small rancher. Is there not some compromise or something that we can do to set up these small ranchers and maybe 

have lower increases? 

Mr. SYNAR. Absolutely, and I would encourage you to go see Senator Jeffords, your former colleague, who has been the strongest 

proponent of this kind of action in the Senate. I can tell you in my conversations with Secretary Babbitt, this is one of the alternatives 

and options they are looking at, so I encourage you to contact them. 

I am more than happy, and I know Ralph is, to sit down and 

work with you on it. This is not some new proposal. This has been 

floating out there for six years. Senator Jeffords has really been the 

strongest proponent in the Senate. We didn't put it in our bill because it was clear those who had been opposed to the grazing fee 

increases altogether didn't want to bargain at all, so why should 

we give in to something when clearly we weren't going to get you 

on board? If you come to the table, you get some of the pie. 

Yes, Ralph? 

Mr. REGULA. I think obviously someone who is leasing 100 acres 

has a different set of circumstances than someone that is leasing 

10,000 acres. Therefore, there has to be a differential to respect the 

economic impact of a small acreage lease versus a large acreage 

lease. That is why I think it is important that this committee try 

to revise the formula to reflect some of those concerns, and also to 

end up with something that is fair to all the parties, namely the 

owners and the permittees. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Over the last several years it seems that all the 

regulations and rules and red tape of the Federal Government have 

been driving small business out of existence at a very rapid rate. 

I would like to see something, some protection put in for the small 

rancher. 
63 

Mr. REGULA. There is no greater advocate of the family farm and 

concern for the small than myself. I think that is a very fair underlying assumption that should be made in developing a formula. 

There has to be some recognition of that, but thus far it has just been stonewalling. ''We want nothing." And that is what happens 

when we get to the other body. Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. I would just point out as to administrative feasibility, historically the natural resource iand use policies have been replete with exemptions for small farmers, small operators and small 

miners, and very often the spirit in which they were offered was 

not followed through in terms of how it actually ended up being applied. Water use, what was the acreage? A hundred and sixty acres 

on reclamation lands. 

Well, gentlemen, I think that perhaps you have set a record for 

being the longest testimony from Members,· but this is obviously 

something in us responded to this issue. I don't know if Congressman Smith is going to put his request in writing to Congressman 

Synar for you to cease and desist-but in any case we hope that 

after this year we all can take a reprieve. Either of you are welcome to stay and remain for the other part of the meeting. [Laughter.] 

PANEL CONSISTING OF MICHAEL PENFOLD, ASSISTANT DI· 

RECTOR, LAND AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES, BUREAU OF 

LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; AND 

DAVID G. UNGER, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CIDEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY 

ROBERT WILLIAMSON, DIRECTOR OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you very much. 

We are pleased to recognize the first fanel: Mr. Michael Penfold, 

the assistant director of the Bureau o Land Management of the 

U.S. Department of Interior, which will settle the 60 percent ques- tion; and Mr. David Unger, the associate deputy chief of the Forest 

Service, Department of Agriculture. So I hope your helpers are 

back there working on that 60 percent question, Mr. Penfold. 

Welcome. Your statements have been made part of the record, 

without objection. You can proceed to summarize or read the relevant portions. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PENFOLD 

Mr. PENFOLD. Thank rou, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure for us 

to. participate in this qu1et dialogue that you are having with your 

colleagues. We will try to deal with the 60 percent question. 

Secretary Babbitt extends his best to you and wishes that he 

could be with you personally here today to discuss these important 

matters. As you know, the Secretary, in the February 16 orientation hearing before the full committee, indicated he was keenly 

aware of these public lands issues, particularly the grazing fee as 

well as the broader issues of grazing land. 

The administration is fully committed to finding a workable and 

equitable solution to the grazing fee debate. To further that cause, 

the Secretary has scheduled a series of upcoming grazing meetings 
64 

in the West to hear ideas on a fair and sensible policy for all affected parties. The Secretary believes we should receive a fair return on our rangeland resources, and do so in a way that is sensitive to the impact not only to the taxpayers but to the affected 

communities and to the lands owned by the public. 

We need to explore the needs of small ranchers, the ones who are 

out there trying to feed their families and support their communities, and see how they can participate in the process of improving 

range conditions and the ecological health of the public lands. 

While the conditions of the grazing lands are improving, some critical areas are still in poor condition and improvements must be accelerated. Hence, the debate that you just had. 

We certainly appreciate congressional efforts to focus on the full 

range of grazing issues. In response to the ongoing congressional 

debate over the existing fee formulas, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture are continuing to examine the viability of an 

alternative incentive-based fee. The basic idea would be to set a 

fair market-value grazing fee for public land ranchers and give 

them credits for good land stewardship, for improving the range 

and enhancing riparian wetland areas. 

The idea behind the concept is to study a fee system that offers 

a means to accomplish several objectives. It can be used to more 

closely align public and private land grazing fees, promote good 

land stewardship while sustaining local economies, and perhaps 

even quiet the century-old debate that has divided so many interests in the West. 

The study is coming along quite well. Departing from my comments here just a moment, we have asked for a peer review panel of some of the economic data by people that we have gotten recommendations from, both the conservation and the livestock communities, to look over our data. Unfortunately, it will be another 

month or so before we have that information available. 

Before decisions are made on any fee structure, the Secretary haS 

deemed it very critical to meet with individual State and local officials and other interest groups who want to provide their views on 

grazing policy issues. These four meetings are scheduled in the 

West-in Bozeman, Montana; Grand Junction, Colorado; Reno, Nevada; and Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

A little bit more on these meetings, because you may have heard 

quite a bit about them here recently. They are designed to explore 

ways of fulfilling the Secretary's dual goals of providing a fair return to taxpayers for public resources and ensuring good stewardship of those resources so that the public lands are productive for 

future generations. The Secretary feels that before he can recommend a course of action to ensure a fair return for resources, he 

needs to listen to people in the West that are affected, real people 

who live with these issues on a day-to-day basis. 

It would be tremendously difficult to come to firm options today absent that kind of input from these people in the West. The Secretary will not make up his mind on these issues until after these 

meetings. He is particularly concerned that the meetings not be an 

activity where people show up in vast numbers to vote on one issue 

or another. He is interested in real dialogue with real people on 
65 

these issues, and people who have ideas as to what the solutions 

are. 

The Department has had some criticism here recently about 

these meetings. We understand that the Secretary has been incredibly busy, coming on the heels of the Forestry Conference and other 

major issues that he is dealing with. Criticisms on times and 

schedules and places and all those difficult things in the short time 

we have had to arrange, I can assure you we are hearing a lot of 

criticism from parties on all sides. So it is important that these 

meetings go off well and the right people come, and we hope the 

committees themselves would feel welcome to participate in this activity. 

The Secretary is really not interested in slick presentations at 

these meetings, but rather an opportunity to talk with folks. He is 

eager to hear comments on issues broader than just the grazing fee 

issue at these meetings, but as well on important issues that are 

embraced in your bill, Mr. Chairman. 

We do appreciate being here. These are issues that are of vital 

concern to the administration, Congress and the American people, and you have the Secretary's pledge that the Department will work 

with you and others to achieve improved public rangelands and a 

legacy for future generations. 

I know that there will be a comment or a question, at least, on 

the 60 percent, but I will hold that until later. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Penfold follows:] 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PENFOLD, AsSISTANT DIRECTOR, LAND AND RENEWABLE 

RESOURCES, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to provide the Administration's 

views on public rangeland grazing fees and management of the rangelands by the 

Department of the Interior. 

As you know from Secretary Babbitt's February 16 "orientation" hearing before 

the full Committee, he is keenly aware that management of the public lands for 

livestock grazing continues to be a source of controversy-both with regard to the 

fee charged for such use and the condition of the public rangeland. This Administration is committed to finding a workable and equitable solution to the grazing fee 

debate. To further this cause, the Secretary has scheduled a series of upcoming grazing meetings in the West to hear ideas on a fair and sensible policy from all 

affected parties. 

We must receive a fair return on our rangeland resources, and do so in a way that is sensitive to the impacts not only to taxpayers, but to the affected commu- nities, and to the lands owned by the public. We must explore the needs of the small 

ranchers, the ones who are out there trying to feed their families and support their 

communities, and see how they can participate in the process of improVIng range condition for maximum productivity. While the condition of grazing lands is improving, some critical areas are still in 

poor condition and improvements must be accelerated. We appreciate all congressional efforts to focus on the full range of grazing issues. 

Today, grazing fees are based on a formula established by the 1978 Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA). The PRIA stipulated a fee formula that would provide "a fair market erice" for grazing privileges and would also "J>revent economic 

disruption and harm to the western livestock industry. While the PRIA grazing fee 

formula was originally enacted for a 7-year trial period, Executive Order No. 12548 

has continued the fee formula since 1986. The 1993 fee is $1.86 per Animal Unit 

Month (AUM). 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers livestock grazing on approximately 165 million acres of public lands. More than 19,000 farmers and ranch- ers graze livestock on these lands, comprising 21,600 allotments. About 90 percent 

of these permittees have small-less than 100 head--or medium-100 to 500 headoperations. Over the past several years, permittees have used an average of 10 mil-
66 

lion AUM's annually. Of these, large operations-<Wer 500 head-account for nearly 

half of the AUM's. 

In response to the ongoing con~s,sional debate over the existing fee system, the 

Departments of the Interior and ~culture are continuing to examine the viability 

of an alternative "incentive-based fee. The basic idea would be to set a marketvalue grazing fee for public land ranchers and give them credits for good land stewardship-for improving the range and enhancing riparian-wetland areas. The idea behind the concept was to study a fee system that offered a means to 

accomplish several objectives. It can be used to more closely align private and public 

land grazing fees, promote good land stewardship while sustaining local economies, 

and perhaps even quiet the century-old debate that has divided so many interests 

in the West. 

Secretary Babbitt has deemed it critical to meet with individuals, State and local 

officials, and interest groups that want to provide their views on grazing policy is· sues. Four meetings are currently scheduled in the West to provide an open forum 

for such discussions. These meetings are planned for the next 3 weeks in Bozeman, 

Montana; Grand Junction, Colorado; Reno, Nevada; and Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

We anticipate that issues raised at these meetings will include: 

methods for determining fair market value; 

whether fee increase will be phased in over a period of time; 

subleasing of grazing permits; 

how best to evaluate range conditions; 

possible components of a range stewardship incentive program; 

whether and how to differentiate between large and small operators, and 

those who rely solely on ranging income; and 

broader land and ecosystem managsment issues, including suggestions for 

how we can do a better job of managing the public's land. 

In order to construct a fair and reasonable policy on the grazing issue, those that 

will have to live with the outcome must be part of the process. Only after these 

meetings are held and the issues fully addressed, will we be in a position to provide 

specific views on rangeland legislation introduced in the 103rd Congress. 

I would like to thank Chairman Vento for scheduling this hearing today on this 

important topic. The health of America's rangelands are of vital concern to the Ad· 

ministration, Congress, and the American public. You have the Secretary's pledge 

that the Department will work with all interests to achieve improved public rangelands, as a legacy for future generations. This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer questions. 

Mr. VENTO. The 1993 version of that particular program. 

Mr. Unger, your brief statement has been placed in the record. 

I guess you relied on BLM to set forth Secretary of Interior 

Babbitt's position, and obviously are cluing into whatever his recommendations might be. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID G. UNGER 

Mr. UNGER. I might just summarize what is a brief statement, 

as you have indicated. 

The Department of Agriculture does support the concept of reforming the grazing fee system on public lands in the western 

States. A detailed administration proposal regarding grazing fees 

has not been developed at this time. 

We believe the most appropriate method to proceed with resolution of the issue, as Mr. Penfold has indicated, is to gather the 

views of the public at these Department of the Interior and Agriculture meetings that are being scheduled now for late April and 

May. As Mike has pointed out, the purpose is for the Departments 

to listen to members of the public, ranching families and interest 

groups in order to gather information needed to help develop an 

administration proposal that moves grazing fees toward an equitable market value and encourages good land stewardship. 
67 

After compiling the information from these public meetings, we 

would like to work with the Congress in developing an acceptable proposal. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Unger follows:] 

STATEMENT OF DAVID G. UNGER, AssociATE DEPUTY CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity 

to otTer our views on public rangeland grazing fees and management of the rangelands b_y the Department of Agriculture. 

The Departxnent of Agriculture supports the concept of reforming the ~azing fee 

system on public lands in the western states. However, a detailed Administration 

proposal regarding grazing fees has not been developed at this time. We believe the 

most ap.Propriate method to initiate resolution of the graziJ:lg fee issue is to gather 

views of the public at the series of joint Department of the Interior and Agriculture 

meetings now being scheduled in the western States during late April and May. 

The purpose of these meetings is for the two Departments to listen to members 

of the _public, ranching families, and interest groups in order to gather information 

needed to help develop an Administration proposal that moves grazing fees toward an equitable market value and encourages good land stewardship. After compiling the information from these public meetings, we would then like 

to work with the Congress in developin~ an acceptable propoSal. 

In summary, the Department of Agriculture supports the concept of moving grazing fees toward an equitable market value in line with the President's 1994 budget. 

However1 we would like to defer discussion of a specific proposal until the Departments ot the Interior and Agriculture have completed the public meetings in the 

West and the input has been analyzed. At the appropriate time, we would like to 

work with the COngress to develop an acceptable proposal. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank yau. What is the acreage, Mr. Unger, of grazing land that the Forest Service has? I know in AUMs it is about 

six million-~. .. but what is the total acreage of land that is covered? 

I know in Mr. Penfold's example that about two-thirds of the BLM 

surface where we have fee simple land is actually used for this purpose as well as for others. Do you know what the Forest Service 

number would be? 

Mr. UNGER. We have about 97 million acres of rangelands in the 

191 million acre National Forest System. 

Mr. VENTO. That are actually grazing lands? Is that nationwide 

or j11st the West? 

Mr. UNGER. That is nationwide. 

Mr. VENTo. What about the western portion? Can you differentiate that? 

Mr. UNGER. I haven't broken it out, but most of the grazing land 

is in the western States. 

Mr. VENTO. I guess that is right. Just to clarify things, I don't 

know if this is relative to the number of AUMs or permittees in the 

Forest Service or the BLM, I just know I hear this number-there 

are 22,000 permittees. Does that include both the BLM and the 

Forest Service? 

Mr. UNGER. We have about 10,000 permittees in the Forest Service. 

Mr. PENFOLD. And we have about 19,000. 

Mr. VENTo. Nineteen thousand. What are the numbers of allotments that you have available? So that would give us, then, if 

there is a shortfall, that all the allotments are not actually under 

permit now. 

Mr. UNGER. Our figure is 9,600 allotments. 

Mr. VENTO. And you have got 10,000 permittees? 
68 

Mr. UNGER. Some are multiple permittees. 

Mr. VENTO. So, in other words, you essentially have no nonuse, 

then, of areas available. Is that what that means? 

Mr. UNGER. Let me ask Mr. Williamson, our director of range 

management. 

Mr. VENTO. Why don't you sit up there, Mr. Williamson and give 

your name and title. You have got a little room there. 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Robert Williamson, 

director of range management. 

The numbers Mr. Unger just provided include the small amount 

of allotments under nonuse. I don't have that readily at my fingertips, but we can provide that. 

Mr. VENTO. There is a suggestion that because of existing economic conditions some of the allotments are not being used, which 

tends to reflect that maybe there is an economic problem or that 

the costs here exceed the value of the use, but you have a very 

small amount? 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. It is a very small amount, and it has been relatively stable the last four or five years. 

Mr. VENTO. Could you give an observation as to why you think 

that is the case, in your own judgment? 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Most of the allotments that are vacant right 

now are high elevation sheep allotments, and have been vacant for 

a considerable length of time. We also have some allotments that 

are vacant right now on marginal ranges. Some of those have impact on them from other uses that have made them uneconomical. 

The permittees have just walked away from them. 

But by and large, then, we also have some that are in partial 

nonuse. They have permits on them but they are in partial nonuse. 

But, once again, most of the vacant allotments are high elevation 

sheep allotments. 

Mr. VENTO. If you want to give us more definitive information on 

that, you can always fill it in. I appreciate your responsiveness to 

that question. 

Mr. Penfold, could you similarly respond in terms of the 

BLMMr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir. We have 26,000 allotments. Approxi- mately 1 percent of those allotments are currently vacant. Then 

within some of the allotments there is some amount of nonuse, par- ticularly in some of the drought areas this past year. We had a lot 

of nonuse because of poor forage conditions, so the numbersMr. VENTO. Is there anything unusual about this over the history of management, or is it just sort of a certain amount that do slip 

into this category? 

Mr. PENFOLD. This is pretty normal. 

Mr. VENTO. So the cost goes up, the cost goes down? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I am not aware that we have seen anything like 

that. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, how about the 60 percent question that was debated back and forth? 

Mr. PENFOLD. The numbers actually haven't changed. 

Mr. VENTO. Don't tell me it is 50 percent, the perfect answer. 

Mr. PENFOLD. What happens is, we put range condition in three 

categories. Good to excellent, fair, and poor to bad. What tends to 
69 

happen is where you throw the "fair," you throw it in the "poor" 

category or you throw it into "good." 

For example, in 1991 we have 36 percent of the range allotments 

that are in ~ood to excellent, 36 are in fair, and 15 percent are in 

poor. There IS another 13 percent that is unclassified. 

Mr. VENTO. Does this have simply to do with man's impact, or 

does this also have to do with the drought and other types of physical problems? 

Mr. PENFOLD. It has to do with all different kinds of conditions. 

Generally we are not looking at temporary drought conditions. It 

may have to do with invasion of nonindigenous plants that suppress the ecological condition and other factors that don't have any- thing to do with livestock grazing, for example. 

Mr. VENTO. I wouldn't say that invasion of non-native or exotic 

species has nothing to do with livestock. Cows and sheep are, I 

think, somewhat selective in terms of what they consume and what 

they don't, and there has been I guess some examples of intentional removal of native species such as sage and so forth. You still 

see some chaining activities in various areas, as well, something I 

am very concerned about. So I would say in that sense there are 

multiple factors that affect the type of plant community, I would 

think. 

But certainly I want to listen to your concern. In any case, in getting into this issue I didn't mean to interrupt my colleague earlier, 

but to point out, isn't it more important or isn't it equally important in looking at some of the specific features like the riparian 

area impact and so forth, which are more critical to biodiversity 

and to the quality of public lands? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. We have put 

quite a bit of emphasis, focus on riparian zones in recent years, and 

we think have had very significant success in rehabilitating some 

of those areas. We find a lot of our riparian areas are in much better shape than they were in years past, and a good share of our 

focus now is on those critical areas that are important to biological diversity of the public rangelands. 

Mr. VENTO. I would just point out one other thing from the fact 

sheet that we have, based on the updated report. I would just point 

out to my colleagues on page 9-if they are interested in where I 

am taking my numbers from, the information from the report that 

the Majority staff has provided-it talks about the 1990 rangeland 

management costs, including range improvements. What it indicates is that the total program for BLM was $3.21 per AUM; for 

the Forest Service, about $3.24 per AUM. The grazmg fees came 

in at $1.81 in that particular year, 1990. This is the updated statement from the two Departments. We have a summary of it for the 

Members in the sheet. It is on page 6 of the backgrounder. This 

points out that for grazing management solely it .is less than that, 

but those are the reported costs for the total program. Can either 

of you explain for the committee members what the facts are? 

What this indicates is that in 1990 the overall receipts were about 

$27 million for a $73 million program and then we gave back $5 

million, so that the total net deficit for the year in these programs, 

for these purposes, when we include range management, range improvements, 1s over $50 million a year. 
70 

Mr. Penfold. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir. If you would let me use gross figures to 

illustrate what the situation is. Our appropriation for rangeland 

programs is around $50 million. We think that about $35 million 

of that are spent because of livestock management activities. Our 

receipts are approximately $19 million, so if you do the quick math, 

there is about $16 million difference. 

Mr. VENTO. I guess my figures here are a little less for 1990, but 

you may have more updated figures. 

In any case, I would just point this out to my colleagues. I think 

that none of us are looking for less range improvement. In fact, 

some of the criticisms that have been forthcoming from the Inspec~ 

tor General and from the GAO and others have been that we don't 

do an adequate job of range management, which translates into a 

need for more BLM and Forest Service personnel in the field, 

which translates into higher costs. 

So what I am trying to point out to my colleagues here is that 

as we increase fees, we would be wise to look at how we can im~ 

prove the stewardship of this on a different basis. I will get back 

to that in a minute. That is what I am trying to set a ground floor 

for, in terms of what these costs are and how we can enable the 

land management agencies or the permittees themselves to help us 

in terms of the stewardship concept of range management. 

Mr. Unger, do you want to respond to this particular question 

similarly? 

Mr. UNGER. Yes. Those figures you quoted are accurate. When 

we took a look at our allotment planning and inventory, grazing 

management, and range improvement costs in 1990, that totaled 

about $30 million or $3.25 per AUM. When we looked at those aspects of those costs that were directly attributable to livestock grazing and would not be performed if we did not have a grazing program, that share of those costs was $22 million or $2.40 per animal 

unit month. 

Mr. VENTO. I guess the fee revenue I have here is only for BLM. 

Can you tell us what your fee revenue was that year or not? 

Mr. UNGER. For 1990 it probably would have been something less 

than $10 million. 

Mr. VENTO. Apparently they are telling me I got the combined 

number. It does say BLM and Forest Service. Pardon me. I'm sorry. 

I wonder if we have got our numbers correct on this. 

Mr. UNGER. It would have been about $9 million in receipts in 

1990. 

Mr. VENTO. That is your part of the $27 million, and you also 

then do the 12.5 percent rebate. 

Mr. UNGER. We have a 25 percent rebate to the counties, 50 percent to the Range Betterment Fund and 25 percent to the Treasury. 

Mr. VENTO. Twenty-five percent to the Treasury. Does it also 

have a portion, then, of the State's that goes to the Grazing Advisory Boards? 

Mr. UNGER. We don't have Grazing Advisory Boards in the Forest Service. 
71 

Mr. VENTO. So for the National Forests, we don't have that particular problem. I don't know, but the States may give them some 

dollars. 

Mr. UNGER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Williamson wants to add something. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, Mr. Williamson? 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. What you are talking about there, that 12.5 

percent is under the Taylor Grazing Act, and the Taylor Grazing 

Act does not apply to the Forest Service. We have never been involved in those State Advisory Boards. 

Mr. VENTO. One of the things I do in the bill I have is, I include 

the National Grasslands in the same bill. My colleagues let that 

fall out. Is there any reason that we shouldn't include them in 

here, Mr. Unger? 

Mr. UNGER. Our feeling would be that it would be appropriate 

to consider inclusion of the grasslands in the fee structure for the 

western National Forest grazing lands. We do believe it would also 

be appropriate, however, to retain the other aspects of administration of the grasslands as they are a\; present. 

Mr. VENTO. The bill that we have doesn't touch that and other 

administrative aspects of it, but that is something I think we will 

pay attention to. 

My time has expired. Mr. Hansen? 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Penfold, when the chairman asked you about the condition 

of the range, you in effect quoted from your 1991 BLM report. 

From that point on, how is it going? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Good. The drought has impacted some in the West, 

but our riparian program is showing very good progress. 

Mr. HANSEN. Would you update these figures you just gave the 

chairman, coming out of your 1991 report, where you quoted that 

verbatim? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I don't have updated figures. 

Mr. HANSEN. But in your own opinion it is better. Is that right? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir, excluding the riparian areas. 

Mr. HANSEN. You also mentioned riparian areas. You think they 

are better? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. One of the things that some Utah and Nevada 

ranchers have told me is that the most detrimental thing on BLM 

ground to riparian areas is the wild horse. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. PENFOLD. We have significant wild horse populations in Nevada and the other parts of the West. I would agree, wild horses 

are a significant impact in Nevada. I don't think it is a major impact in other States. 

Mr. HANSEN. Your BLM people out in that area tell me they just 

crucify riparian areas. Are your folks wrong? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Are you talking about Nevada, sir? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes. 

Mr. PENFOLD. No, our people are right. We have overpopulations 

in places in Nevada that are affecting riparian areas. 

Mr. HANsEN. Much more than cows, sheep and other domestic 

animals, is that correct? 
72 

Mr. PENFOLD. We have studies. What you have is combined impact in some areas, and we have studies that work towards sepa- rating what the effects of horses are-and I am talking again of 

Nevada-and what the effects of livestock are, and it varies from 

one area to the other depending on the numbers. 

Mr. HANSEN. In fact, I have been given to understand by some 

range management people that if the wild horse seems to keep perpetuating itself and growing in numbers, that it could ruin the 

range more than any other single animal. Is that a correct statement? 

Mr. PENFOLD. The wild horse can have very significant negative impact on rangeland conditions, and our program has made some 

pretty good progress over the last couple of years~ though. We are 

making substantial progress with birth control tecnniques and new 

policies on the horse program. 

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me, Mr. Penfold. How much do you spend 

on each wild horse per year? 

Mr. PENFOLD. The population is about 50,000 wild horses. The 

program is funded roughly at a $14 million level. 

Mr. HANSEN. So we are talking $18 million if we take the ranchers off the range, if we lose; but we are paying $15 million for wild 

horses that are ruining riparian areas. Is that a correct statement? 

Mr. PENFOLD. We are talking about horses in one State. The situation in Utah, for example, is in good shape. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, wherever they may be, I mean, this issue 

today is the range of the West. The horses seem to be in southern 

Idaho, western Utah and Nevada, and it is true Wyoming has a lot 

of them. But it disturbs me in a way that we are spending that 

kind of money on wild horses that you folks have just acknowledged create more trouble to riparian areas, yet we are going to 

throw the cattleman off the range for $18 million. It is almost a 

switch. It is almost a trade. 

I find it interesting in your testimony that you talked a lot about 

Secretary Babbitt going to hold public meetings on this issue and 

mentioned the places. I have no argument with that. Is the Secretary going to be at these meetings? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. He is committed to being at all four of these meetings? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. What emphasis and importance will these public 

meetings have upon his decision? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I tell you, I can just absolutely assure you the Secretary is deadly serious about hearing what people have to say, and 

not making any decisions before these meetings. We briefed the 

Secretary on some issues relative to this, and I can absolutely verify he wants to hear this thing out before anybody makes any decisions in our department. 

Mr. HANSEN. So in your department, in the Secretary's mind, as 

best you can look at it, there are no preconceived ideas on how this 

thing is going to fall out? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I think the preconceived ideas are these. He comes 

from a very strong ranching background, and I think he understands very well the importance of small agricultural operations to 
73 

these local communities and the lifestyle. I think he is very keenly 

aware of that. 

On the other hand, too, he is interested in trying to find a fair 

fee, and particularly make improvements of those range conditions 

that are not what they should be. He has a very balanced outlook 

on this, I believe, and he sincerely wants to have a chance to hear 

people out and work with this body and our citizens to find a good 

solution to these issues. 

Mr. HANSEN. In these meeting you expect the constituency of 

what? The people who live on the range, so to speak, to come in? 

You said earlier you don't want a mass demonstration, which I can 

surely understand. You want some really objective, articulate, factual types of testimony. Is that correct? 

Mr. PENFOLD. That is true, and there will be panels that will be 

invited to present comments, and the meetings will also be open to 

the public for brief comments. Also, opportunity to submit written 

comments will be provided. 

Mr. HANSEN. Will you give this committee, if we ask, your synop- sis? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I am sure the Secretary is going to be very eager 

to discuss what he finds with this committee. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate your comments, Mr. 

Penfold. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Ms. English. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Just a quick question. I know we are running out 

of time here. 

The riparian areas in Arizona have improved immensely this 

year with the incredible amount of water we have received. In fact, 

now we need some way to channel and save some of that water. 

Previous to that we have had many years of drought. 

So the facts that people are disputing today clearly are fluid, and 

I don't mean that as a pun. I mean it is just very fluid every year. With changing weather conditions, those riparian areas seem to 

also change, but there is also an increase in riparian areas in Arizona. 

Are either of you familiar with an informal group called Six-Six 

in Arizona? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I am not familiar with that. 

Ms. ENGLISH. There are six Sierra Club members and six ranchers without any-they aren't just Sierra Club members, I should 

take that back-Audubon and some of the other environmental 

communities who got together without Federal or State involvement and started talking about good management practices. 

I have been on at least two ranches that, without the Federal 

Government telling them what to do, they are now sitting down at 

the table and applying the sciences of sustainability and the need 

for good ranching and the economic opportunities for the State, and 

coming up with not only protecting the riparian habitats but also 

increasing productivity and having less of a need for ranching subsidies. I think it is an excellent example. I think that you should 

take a look at it. 

A ranch that I visited was Phil Knight's ranch in the Rickenberg 

area, and one of the people involved in it is Dan Daggett, who is 
74 

a Sierra Club member. I think it is a first to get these two very adversarial groups to be talking about how to really accomplish stuff, rather than the badgering that has gone on even in this 

room, which I think is way past the time for this dialogue where 

we are so critical of each other. Let's get ahead and get on with 

trying to solve the problems. 

They have done some pilot programs. They have increased riparian habitat on a number of ranches. It should be looked at as very 

good potential for other States. I just hold Arizona up as a good example in that kind of a program. 

No questions, just more comments. 

Mr. UNGER. We will certainly look into that and learn what we 

can. There are other good examples in other parts of the country 

where the differing interests have gotten together and been able to 

work out accommodations, but this is good to know about and we 

will certainly follow up on it. 

Mr. PENFOLD. My staff just passed me a note and said, "Dummy, 

you should know about that. It is an outstanding example of what 

is going on out there." So that is the kind of positive stuff we like 

to hear. 

Mr. VENTO. Congressman Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to my friend from 

Utah. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for yielding. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the statements of 

Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, Congresswoman Barbara 

Vucanovich of Nevada, and Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona be 

inserted in the record. 

Mr. VENTO. Without objection. 

[The statements follow:] 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on two 

bills before your subcommittee today, H.R. 643 and H.R. 1602. Both of these bills 

would increase the fees ranchers pay for grazing livestock on public lands. 

The perennial fight over grazing fees has begun. And this year, instead of pushing 

the issue as an environmental one, proponents are pushing the increase as an eco- nomic one. While I am the first to admit we need to tackle our deficit problems, 

I don't see how pushing an increase in grazing fees will help solve this problem. The fact is the two bills before your subcommittee today will hurt rural economies 

in sixteen western states. 

Proponents of the fee increase and the eastern press have emotionalized the issue 

to make it sound like western ranchers are living in the lap-of-luxury. Well, I only 

wish that was the case in Montana! The livestock industries are economically unstable at best. 

People who fully understand the intricate parts of this debate can attest to the 

fact that the proposed increases will probably do more economic damage than if the 

fee remained the same. In my home state of Montana, nearly 5,000 ranches will be 

put at an economic risk if unrealistic increases, like the ones contained in these 

bills, are enacted. And as everyone here realizes, the economic repercussions will be 

felt all the way down to the local gas station and grocery store. 

Also, people from the eastern part of our country do not understand that agri- culture benefits wildlife. In Congressman Vento's bill, H.R. 1602, provisions are included to have a part of the revenues raised go toward fish and wildlife improvements. However, maintaining current land uses is often the best way of protecting wildlife. Ranching provides for the large open spaces that wildlife need. Wildlife 

managers can work with a single resource oriented livestock ,eroducer to put into 

place wildlife programs. That would be difficult if not imposs1ble to implement if 

large acreages are subdivided. Once the economic stability of ranching is worsened, 
75 

neighboring private land will be subdivided into small ranchetts. The loss of large 

western ranches is not only an economic loss, it is a loss for wildlife corridors. 

With over thirty-five percent of the State federally owned Montanans have had 

to deal with the large federal bureaucracy as a neighbor and landlord. However, 

overall the grazing program is a good example that private-public partnerships can work. I do think the grazing fee formula needs to be re-evaluated, and a modest 

increase may be in order. However, if an increase is imposed, provisions also need 

to be included which allow for ranchers to be reimbursed for nnprovements made 

by them on these public lands. Congressman Synar's bill, H.R. 643, does allow for 

this to some extent. Many Montanans perform the day-to-day duties which are needed to keep these lands in good condition. And most of these lands are in better 

condition today than they were years ago. Maintaining fencing and stream banks are just two examples of the daily duties ranchers perform on our public lands. 

Ranchers in Montana want to stay in business. And unreasonable fee increases 

will put these people at economic risk. I am hopeful that the proponents of these 

bills will take a closer look at what these provisions will do to local communities 

in the West and in Montana. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. Although I am no longer a member of this Subcomm1ttee, this issue remains a top priority of mine and I appre- ciate your allowing me the opportunity to participate. Mr. Chairman, this is a familiar issue pitting western rural areas against urban areas. The question is whether American taxpayers receive a fair return for use of 

federal landS by the public land livestock industry. I believe the return to the taxpayer is much higher than would be if federal land management agencies were left 

to their own devices. Briefly, let me explain. We constantly hear arguments from environmental extremists and individuals 

hostile to the public lands rancher that Animal Unit Month (AUM) receipts do not cover the cost to the federal government to administer the grazing program. This 

is arguably so, but only if examined in the narrowest of terms, a very naiv~ ap- proach. 

Public land allotments comprise lands our homesteading forefathers didn't want. 

In many instances, the land is far from ideal. In general, the land is poorer in forage value than comparable private allotments. In fact, more than 20 percent of AUMs 

go unused annually. It 1s not accurate to compare public allotments to private pasture leases. However, to limit my remarks, I will only speak of the benefits to the 

taxpayer of having ranchers on the public lands. 

The west is vast. Federal agenCles do not have near the resources to properly 

manage the west for wildlife, recreation and other uses. This is where the family rancher comes in. Today, the rancher provides out-of-pocket costs for water-development, riparian management, road mamtenance and other activities which not only benefit the family's herd, but wildlife, recreationists, and other land use demands, as well. Wildlife competes for forage, uses developed water, enjoys enhanced ripar- ian areas, etc, all of which is provided by the rancher, rarely the federal agency. How does one place a value on this? The taxpayer receives these benefits to wildlife, as well as enhanced recreational areas, from the rancher, while all the time, her 

livestock operation is paying money into the Treasury. 

In contrast, the removal of the public lands rancher will result in the loss of these 

benefits to the taxpayer. The long term effect would be an increase in federal money 

spent for upkeep of improvements. The rancher-home improvements benefit wildlife 

and recreationists and have come to be expected by the American people. The result 

of removing the public lands rancher would be a net loss to the Treasury as no new dollars would be produced by the land. 

I was heartened to hear President Clinton agreed to take a reasonable approach 

to natural resource issues. He came to understand what trying to raise 87 million 

dollars through the federal grazing program would do to the Treasury, a net loss. 

The bills before the Subcommittee today reflect the same arguments we've heard for 

years. Fortunately, however, out on the range reason still prevails. Today, along with twenty of my colleagues, I am re-introducing legislation to codify the existing 

formula. Until the Democratic Members of this Subcommittee follow President Clinton's lead, you can be assured we will fight tooth-and-nail against such unreason- able proposals as H.R. 1602 and H.R. 643. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome a fellow Nevadan to the Subcommittee. Barbara Curti, testifying on behalf of family ranchers belonging to the 
76 

National Farm Bureau Federation, owns and operates a dairy and ranch in north- ern Nevada with her husband and children. I am pleased she can once again be 

with us. Also, Mr. Chairman, thank you, again, for allowing me to participate today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM KOLBE 

Mr. Chairman, I am submitting this statement to express my strong opposition 

to HR 643 and HR .1602. My reasons for opposing these bills are simple. They are fundamentally unfair to western ranchers as they seek to dramatically increase 

grazing fees on public lands and they are unnecessary. 

The current practice of levying grazing fees continues to work well. It is fairly 

based on prevailing market conditions, rising and falling to reflect various changes 

in the market. Grazing fees are determined using a formula devised by this body- a formula supported by the Carter, Reagan, and Bush Administrations,-and a formula that has withstood challenge in federal court. 

HR 1602 would increase fees from $1.86 to $4.96, almost a 200% increase. The 

result, according to one economic study, would be a decrease in average net incomes 

of $2,500 per ranch household. This, according to the same economic study, would cause about half of the 19 million AUM's currently used by western permittees to 

go unused or taken over by large corporate ranching operations. 

The family rancher will be history if this bill is successful. We hear much talk 

these days about job creation. This bill is a job destroyer. Not only will this devastate the families who depend on ranching for their livelihood, but entire rural 

communities, consumers of beef and the environment will all be worse-off without 

the contributions of public ranchers. 

The fee increase contained in these bills fails to recognize the marked difference 

between federal and private leases. Most federal rangeland is not lush meadows, but 

sparse desert or mountainous terrain. Federal "permittees" bear additional costs of 

transportation, herding, and predator and death losses. These permittees must pay 

for and maintain water systems on public lands that benefit grazing livestock as well as wildlife. The federal permittee has the right to the grass only, yet must pay 

for all maintenance and improvements. When these costs are added up, the differences between federal and private lease rates, not surprisingly, disappear. In 

many cases, final costs to federal permittees actually surpass private lease rates. 

Those who seek to remove cattle and ranchers from the west rely on the 1986 Department of Agriculture and Interior grazing fee report. This report and a 1992 update, were recently analyzed. That analysis found, among other things, that the 

data used to draw the final report's conclusions is completely unreliable. But sound 

and fair data is not what these bills are based on. They are based on the political 

goal of abolishing public ranching. This is neither fair nor in the public interest and 

these bills ought to be summarily rejected by this subcommittee. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Penfold, I want to get at this question of the updated grazing fee allotted to livestock for a moment. Isn't it true 

there is a debate going on in your agency with respect to capital 

costs versus administrative costs? In other words, of the shortfall, 

I am reading from a memo that indicates in 1990 there was $10 

million expended for range improvements, but they are not operat~ 

ing costs, they are capital investments from which the taxpayers 

receive a tremendous increase as well. 

Mr. PENFOLD. There is a debate as to what you should include 

in costs. 

Mr. SMITH. Now if you indeed subtracted the capital programs, 

this memo indicates that the shortfall for range improvements investments would be about $1.8 million, and if you subtract the $1.5 

million invested by grazers and permittees, that would shrink to 

$300,000. And then you have to add in, of course, the unknown but 

substantial amounts that grazers assist in managing publicly 

owned range improvements, which is an unknown factor. So this 

memo seems to indicate there isn't any deficit. 
77 

Mr. PENFOLD. The factor depends a great deal on how you look 

at range improvement investments, as to who benefits from that 

and where that charge should be made. 

Mr. SMITH. Exactly. I think we have to be careful that we don't 

overemphasize the issue. In other words, you mentioned that you 

thought there was a $16 million shortfall. That would mean you would have to double the grazing fees to cover the shortfall, JUSt 

for the cost. But if you eliminate capital improvements, which you 

probably should-that is not an administrative cost, and it is a 

broad-based benefit to wildlife, to the investment-then you get to 

the point that I think BLM testified last year that it cost $1.68 for 

the administration of grazing on public lands per AUM. I think the 

Forest Service was $2.40, which they have testified again today. Is 

that correct, Mr. Unger? What is the fee now that the Bureau of 

Land Management attributes to grazing for the cost of administration? 

Mr. PENFOLD. My staff tells me we haven't recalculated it this 

year, Congressman. We would be happy to do that for you if you 

would like. 

Mr. SMITH. I think the point is that we must not mislead these 

folks into thinking that there is a huge deficit and a huge subsidy, 

which by the way there is not a huge subsidy in the existing grazing fee. 

Mr. VENTO. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SMITH. Just let me finish my line of thought, Mr. Chairman, 

and I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. Unger, this raises another question. Why does it take six 

times the personnel for the Forest Service to manage the animal 

unit months in grazing than it does the Bureau of Land Management? 

Mr. UNGER. I don't know that it does. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I think it does. 

Mr. UNGER. Could you give us an idea? 

Mr. SMITH. I am just taking the AUMs managed by both agen- cies and attributed to range management. You have allotted six 

times the people. I will send you a letter enumerating that if you would like. 

Mr. UNGER. I don't have the particulars of our program before 

me. 

Mr. SMITH. You might want to answer me by letter, and I will 

yield to the Chair. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. I'm sorry to interrupt. This really gets back to 

your other point. 

First of all, the updated report does articulate the difference in 

terms of including range improvements which you cite as capital 

cost. Is that correct? 

Mr. SMITH. I have the updated in front of me, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. No, I understand that, but you are referring to those 

as capital costs? 

Mr. SMITH. I am suggesting that before we determine what the 

management fee is for BLM, we have got to separate out capital expenditures. 

Mr. VENTO. I am just trying to understand if you are equating 

range improvements for the total program, the difference as in the 
78 

numbers I have. I am not asking you to ~ee on the numbers, but 

they are $3.24 for the Forest Service and $2.40 without the capital 

cost. Is that your point? 

Mr. SMITH. No, that is included in the capital costs. 

Mr. VENTO. The $3.24 includes them? Well, in any case--

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I think the point is that the Forest 

Service testified and that is the number they used last year. It cost 

$2.40 for them to manage livestock on the public ranges. That is 

what it cost per animal unit month. Last year the Bureau of Land 

Management had a much lower number than that. In fact, the 

grazing fee last year was higher than their number. I am trying 

to get at this question. 

Mr. VENTO. The only point that I would make is not to be argumentative about the numbers. I was just trying to understand what 

numbers you were using and what you were referring to. My point 

would only be that if you don't include the capital costs in the year 

that they are expended, you would have to amortize them over a 

period of years, in which case you would be amortizing I guess past 

costs that are currently being utilized in a given year. 

Mr. SMITH. No, don't put words in my mouth. 

Mr. VENTO. I am not putting any words in your mouth. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I am suggesting that these capital investments are investments not only for livestock but for other reasons. 

That is the discussion that is going on and the debate, if you may. 

There are other purposes and benefits from these capital investments that are included in this shortfall, and I am trying make the 

point-and I think I have made it-that you can't attribute those 

investments to the administrative cost of managing cattle on public 

lands. If you do, you skew the issue. If you skew the issue, then 

you have an argument to raise fees astronomically, and I am trying 

to get at the point. You can't use that argument because it isn't 

there. 

Mr. VENTO. The gentleman has the last words. I have many more 

I could say, but we will continue our discussion on capital costs and 

amortization. The meeting will be in recess while the Members 

vote. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. VENTO. If I could have the witnesses back at the witness 

table, we could probably proceed. I have a few other questions. 

This issue reminds me of the Mo Udall story where he talks 

about bringing together the lamb and the lion and trying to settle 

some peace, and his observation was, you could bring them together but the lamb wouldn't get much sleep. 

Mr. PENFOLD. We lambs appreciate that. 

Mr. VENTO. I was referring to the members of the committee 

more than the sacrificial lambs that we have as witnesses today. 

In any case, I had a series of questions. I was trying to make a 

point with my colleague about the issue in terms of range management costs, and the higher figure per AUM that the Forest Service 

uses in that updated study was substantially higher than BLM'sI think he was trying to point that out to you, Mr. Unger-which 

apparently is attributed to full time equivalent personnel assigned. 

He suggested it would be better to exclude capital costs. 
79 

But if you were to withdraw all capital costs or extract them, 

then presumably you would have to factor them back in on an amortized basis. You would have it over 10 years or 15 years, whatever you thought the lifetime of the projected effort was, so you would be picking up capital improvements that had been put in in 

the 1960s and would be reflected now-well, if it is a 30-year AUM, 

you would be picking up some of those costs later and just describing a certain percentage in a given year. So I don't know that it 

would make a lot of difference. 

So I think that would put another record-keeping burden on the 

agencies. And, referring to a record-keeping issue-Congressman 

Synar has released this new GAO report, as you are well aware, 

Mr. Penfold. Mr. Unger, I don't know how much a part you were 

of this particular study, I guess not much, because it deals with 

BLM only. But the implication of this GAO study-which appar- ently GAO didn't hold for comments from the agency, although you 

are aware of the fact that it was being done, Mr. Penfold-is that 

your database is incomplete and inaccurate, and I guess Congressman Smith was implying there were some problems with it as well. 

Do you want to comment on that? 

Mr. PENFOLD. We haven't had a chance to see the report. We just had a chance to see one here a few minutes ago, so we haven't had 

a chance to study it yet, but we are very much aware that we have 

a problem in what we call our GABS accounting system, as well 

as all of our field managers doing a careful job of keeping records 

of where investments are made. So when we have a chance to 

study the report, we will probably find ourselves in considerable 

agreement. 

Mr. VENTO. It is unusual not to have the information from the 

BLM. I know that last year, as you recall painfully, we also took 

up with BLM the issue raised by the Inspector General in terms 

of BLM field office operation costs, and there was quite a to-do 

about the fact that there wasn't this traceability of dollars. This 

new report is really, I think, something similar dealing with the 

range management. It is very important here, in connection with 

fees. Frankly, I hope that the numbers we have in the fee report, 

are more accurate than other BLM records, so we can use them, 

I mean the 1990 updated report and/or some variation on it. 

The implication here is that in the updated re:port there are substantial costs attributed directly to grazing which have really no 

multipurpose use. That is, at least, what I read from the report, but that is my sort of quick look at it and summary look at it. That 

is the imflication of that particular report, that there are in factand I wil repeat it again for emphasis or for clear understandingthat there are costs attributed to other activities of BLM that really only benefit grazing, so that would tend to in fact put more cost 

into it. 

We may reach a point here when indeed, because of the marginal 

nature of some of the land that is utilized, it would end up being 

higher. Do you expect that would happen, Mr. Penfold, if we raised 

the fees? Can you predict with any accuracy or any certainty what 

would happen? 

Mr. PENFOLD. In terms of the amount of costs to the govern- ment? 
80 

Mr. VENTO. The amount of cost to the individual permittee. 

Mr. PENFOLD. If you raise the fees, the cost would be higher. 

Mr. VENTO. I think the question is, would there be a discontinuance of use, is really what the question is. 

Mr. PENFOLD. There certainly is a point when there would be a 

discontinuance of use. We have looked at that to some degree. Certainly at a $9 figure we see less AUMs being used, at a $5 fee 

maybe not so much. 

Mr. VENTO. Of course the CBO and OMB score it as an increase 

in terms of revenue, sir, not assuming a substantial drop-off in 

terms of utilization. 

Mr. Thomas hasn't had a chance to ask any questions, so let me 

recognize him at this time. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Penfold, what is your view of the merits of Grazing Advisory 

Boards? 

Mr. PENFOLD. The Grazing Advisory Boards? Historically they 

have provided a useful tool, particularly in relationship to their 

peer pressure on other permittees who needed to change their behavior. They have been useful there. 

The administration right now is taking a look at all advisory 

boards, including grazing and our District Advisory Boards, getting 

our comments on those to decide under the President's leadership 

which advisory boards and councils can be eliminated. Obviously 

there are some functions that are important to take place that 

would have to be provided for under any advisory board situation 

that we face. 

Mr. THOMAS. But in general, in your experience in the past, the 

Grazing Advisory Boards have been a useful tool for you? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. THOMAS. There has been some discussion, or rumor perhaps 

it is, that the fees would be decided by executive order. What do 

you know about that? 

Mr. PENFOLD. There has been no decision on that at all. 

Mr. THOMAS. That is a possibility? 

Mr. PENFOLD. It is a fundamental question. The administration 

would very much like to find an administrative way to establish a 

fee. We looked at the legal aspects- of that and there are several 

alternatives that look like they could be administratively implemented. 

Mr. THOMAS. Despite the disagreement we have, which is not uncommon in the Congress, wouldn't you suspect we ought to have 

a little voice in that? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I think under any scenario the administration 

would want to chat with particularly this committee. 

Mr. THOMAS. That would be nice. 

What about Mr. Unger? The paper indicates that the cost for 

managing livestock grazing is $2.40. 

Mr. UNGER. In 1990? Yes, sir. 

Mr. THOMAS. So if a formula were devised based on your cost, 

then, you could say that would offset the incremental specific costs 

that you have, $2.40. 
81 

Mr. UNGER. We certainly can provide information on what it 

costs us to administer the part of the range program that is attributable directly to grazing. Mr. THOMAS. And that is what this is currently? Mr. UNGER. Yes, that is what it was in 1990. We haven't updated it since then. 

Mr. THOMAS. What do you suppose would be the result if private 

grazers did not use grass on the forest, and hence were reluctant 

to let the wildlife use the private land in the winter? What would 

be the impact of that, do you suppose? 

Mr. UNGER. It is true, as I tl:ii:ilk was stated earlier in this hearing, that the role of livestock grazing has significance in terms of 

managing the resource. There are other herbivores that graze, wildlife in particular. If you assume that there was no more livestock grazing, one would have to look at what the impact would be 

in terms of greater use of the forage by wildlife or whether there 

would be other management techniques that would need to be used 

to accomplish a particular objective, whether it be recreation or 

anything else. 

Mr. THoMAS. I just remember specifically being up in the Pitchfork Ranch country in Meteetse, Wyoming, a year ago. They have 

cattle in the summer on the forest for a few months, but the elk 

are down in the hay meadows all winter. No offset to the rancher. 

It is sort of interesting. What is your experience, Mr. Penfold, on 

the ability to divide the lands if we were to do that, for instance, 

if you would fence out the Federal lands? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Very difficult, certainly, as represented in your State, in most States, and the public lands in all States are really 

very fractured ownership. Some States like Nevada have some fairly good solid blocks, but in most cases it is a very fractured ownership, almost impossible to fence separately. The ecological condition 

on the private lands is as important to the wildlife as the ecological 

conditions on the public lands. Programs need to be worked out 

jointly and cooperatively with the private landowners and across 

the Federal lands. 

Mr. THOMAS. The nature of the development, making claims, you 

are taking the water and the better lands and leaving the rest. You 

simply can't separate the use of those lands in the West. 

Mr. PENFOLD. You can hardly separate them. I think as a rule 

of thumb, though, a lot of the better lands are homesteaded, which 

emphasizes your point, too, in that particularly for winter habitats, 

a lot of the prime winter habitats are on private land in a lot of 

the West. 

Mr. THOMAS. I guess I wasn't clear, then. We had a little exchange this morning, as you know, where Mr. Synar indicated that 

60 percent of the lands were in poor shape. That does not square with your analysis. 

Mr. PENFOLD. As I indicated, I think the question is whether you 

consider "fair" to be in the poor category or "fair" to be in the good 

category. 

Mr. THOMAS. "Fair" and "poor" are two different things. He said 

that there were 60 percent that were in poor condition. You 

wouldn't agree with that? 

Mr. PENFOLD. No, we think not. 
82 

Mr. THOMAS. The management issue seems to me to be somewhat divided from the fee. Now it is your responsibility in both 

agencies, isn't it, to manage the land? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. UNGER. Yes. 

Mr. THOMAS. So if you had an allotment that was overgrazed or 

for some reason needed to be changed, it is your responsibility to 

do that? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. THOMAS. Do you tie it to the fee? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Presently there is no tie to the fee. Of course, the 

concept of an incentive program--

Mr. THOMAS. I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. Your management of the land is not tied to what the fees are? 

Mr. PENFOLD. No, sir. 

Mr. UNGER. The only relationship in our program is that a proportion of the fees that is collected is turned over to the Ranch Betterment Fund, and therefore is used for improvement, so there is 

that relation. 

Mr. THOMAS. That is a good point. I understand that. But if we 

came to you and said this portion is poorly managed, then regardless of the fee there ought to be something that you do about that. 

Mr. UNGER. That would be our responsibility, that is right. 

Mr. THOMAS. My point, of course, is that people keep making the 

connection between poor grazing conditions and fees. I would suggest to you that there is no real relationship between those two 

things. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. I think it would be useful, to go out and look at the 

whole evolution of plant succession in terms of grazing areas, because it is implied that there would be an impact on the range if 

there wasn't as much grazing. I hope that is not going to be the 

outcome of what we do here, that we completely eliminate grazing. 

Mr. THOMAS. That is a management decision, Mr. Chairman. It 

has really little to do with the fee. If this will support 100 AUMs 

or 60, that decision needs to be made. It has little to do with the 

fee. 

Mr. VENTO. And I appreciate this. I thank the gentleman-! 

agree with his conclusion. If it is a question about putting enough 

resource back or if we are not treating the land properly, clearly 

that is important. 

My point was a little bit different; that is, just to look at the natural succession when sagebrush is removed and other types of exotic species are encouraged like cheatgrass, and eventually you get 

tumbleweed. That is very susceptible to fire because it accumulates 

and builds up on fence rows and does a variety of other things that 

are very problematic. 

And then you see later the type of plant community of juniper 

and pinon, and I guess ecologists and so forth on your staff could 

give us a pretty good walk-through as to what has happened. That 

is one of the reasons I get very concerned about some of the chaining that goes on, because you are really disrupting what is a pretty settled type of plant community in these areas. 
83 

Ironically, we were back over in the Snake River Birds of Prey 

Area, and BLM and the Department of Defense were planting sagebrush to restore a natural type of plant community, and then I flew 

to Utah and BLM was doing chaining. So I was a little confused. 

I understood what was happening, but I think we have really got 

to get our act together on some of those matters. 

Let me ask a question that also dovetails, and Craig, if you want 

to jump in, please feel free to do it. But let me say, President Clinton, I think, could issue a new executive order to describe a new 

formula for determining fair market value for the purpose of grazing fees. In fact, I think that likely would occur. I hope that we can 

settle that legislatively at some point, with that necessarily as an 

understanding, but does the administration believe that it could do 

more without specific authority? 

For instance, there are three aspects here that I see. One is the 

incentive-based provisions that Congressman Darden and I included in the bill that we put in and that Secretary Lujan talked 

about. Second is a two-tier system which apparently President 

Clinton is interested in. Third is a factor that was reflected in the 

bills that we have before us, and that is the phase-in. So those are 

at least three aspects where we think or suspect legislative authority or authorization language in law may be necessary. 

Mr. Penfold. 

Mr. PENFOLD. And there are others that will be looked at, as 

well, as you start arraying the different variations on the theme. 

There is quite a long list of different variations on a theme that 

could be made on grazing fees. 

There is consultation going on right now with the solicitors, and 

will be as we really start identifying and analyzing alternatives 

that come out of these meetings for the Secretaries and the administration. Some of those are going to require some additional legal 

work to see if they can be done administratively. So that is kind 

of where we are on that. 

Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the response. I guess we are concerned 

because at least an initial analysis leads us to think that for incentive-based fees, two tier fees, and phase-ins legislation is needed. 

There may be others that require legislative change. The result 

would be, if an executive order came out that in fact put in place 

a higher fee, you couldn't have any of the offsetting impacts. It 

makes it more difficult and makes it more imperative that we then 

should act on these other issues which I think the Secretary and 

the President feel are important. 

Mr. Unger, did you want to comment? 

Mr. UNGER. No. I agree. 

Mr. VENTO. You concur with what your colleague says. Obviously 

the basic law requires fair market value return on forage. The 1986 

executive order of then-President Reagan is still in effect. It requires use of a specific formula as a way to implement the basic 

requirements to set the grazing fee. 

Does that in fact get us back to the fair market value? The 1986 

Executive Order was attacked in court, and it was upheld, but it 

is a concern, I think, that we actually get going on this particular 

issue. If you did try to administratively set a multiple price system, 

you may get variations. It was upheld on the single price, not on 
84 

multiple variations. That is the point that my staff is pointing out 

to me, and which I would share with you. There are a couple of other issues here. Let me try this with Mr. 

Unger. It is true that the Forest Service has somewhat stricter requirements than BLM for obtaining grazing permits in terms of the 

ownership of base property and local residence. That is to say, the 

issue here of circumventing and subleasing is more difficult. 

Would it be appropriate to consider similar requirements for permittees seeking to qualify for a small operator fee system? That is 

to say that the Forest Service now has somewhat stricter requirements than BLM for obtaining grazing permits, in terms of ownership of base property and local residence. Could that type of system 

be put in place for different size operators, in other words, having 

more information on those issues? 

Mr. UNGER. I am just trying to think through how that would 

work in practice. We do require ownership of base property and the 

animals as a condition, and to avoid subleasing under those circumstances. You are saying could that be done differently or applied to small operators? 

Mr. VENTO. If the size of the operation is to be the basis of distinguishinf fees, I guess I don't know what the profile of the Department o Agriculture permittees is, but before you go on and give 

me the profile, why don't you try to respond, if you can? 

Mr. UNGER. I am going to ask Mr. Williamson to approach that 

question. 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Mr. Chairman, we are doing that to a certain 

degree. Base property requirements, the acreage of base property, 

is set at the local level. The forest level, generally speaking, i~;~ in 

an acreage basis. That acreage varies from forest to forest. 

Generally speaking, based on my knowledge, where we have 

smaller operators or clusters of smaller operators, then that base 

property requirement is lower for them than it is where we have 

the larger operators. So yes, that particular thing can work and is 

working to a degree, and we try to keep that base property current 

within the local area as it relates to the common practice of the operators in that area. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Penfold, do you think that tightening up that 

type of system or the BLM having that type of system would work 

for the BLM or not? 

Mr. PENFOLD. We have base property requirements, as well, or 

base water, one or the other, so there are some similarities there. 

Mr. VENTO. The implication is in my question, and I think the 

reality is, that the BLM is not as strict with regards to the base 

property qualifications, and/or you talked about water? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Are you talking about subleasing? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, I am talking about subleasing. That is one effect 

of it. The other would be having a foundation to actually administer a two-tiered system, having a foundation to actually administer that sort of system which I think most Members here seem 

to be interested in, at the very least. I won't say that they favor 

it. 

Of course past attempts, as I said in my comments previously, 

to give small operators a break have been often manipulated to the 

benefit of others, so that the 160-acre reclamation limitation or 
85 

other types of limits have become unworkable or irrelevant. So I 

am concerned about, as we go down this path, whether or not we 

have the base type of information or can develop it, or does the 

BLM type of laiid use pattern and permittee allotments not lend 

itself to that? 

Mr. PENFOLD. We have pretty good information on base types. Mr. VENTO. So you believe you can parallel it? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I believe we could. 

Mr. VENTO. I think the open question is to try and prevent a 

small-operator break from becoming just a big loophole. 

Let me say one other thing. I know my colleagues are waiting, 

including Mr. LaRocco, but Congressman Thomas asked to get an 

update-to some extent an update, not a formal and complete 

study, I guess-of what the costs are of operations for the most recent year available. We have 1990. Insofar as that is goinf to be 

completed by the Forest Service on Mr. Thomas' request, think 

it would be helpful were it also done by the BLM, so we would have 

an update of both BLM and Forest Service. It would also be useful 

to the Secretary to have that in the event that there are some unusual developments that have occurred since 1990. 

I guess we could get 1992 data at this time, could we not? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir, and there is something else that might be 

useful. I think it is going to be useful to the administration. That 

is the economic work that we are doing right now, which is looking 

at the cost of operating on private land and the cost of operation 

on Federal land. 

Mr. VENTO. Is there a parallel? Is that being done collaboratively with the Forest Service? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. You talked about that study coming out in about a 

month. Is that the study you talked about? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Insofar as you are answering questions specifically for Mr. Thomas with respect to the Forest Service's overall costs, 

updated and I guess on a 1992 basis, I just wanted to make certain 

that we have that information sort of broadly. 

Mr. PENFOLD. I would be happy to. 

Mr. VENTO. Let me cease at this time. 

Mr. Thomas, did you have a comment? 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir. I would like to follow up just a little bit 

on this business of subleasing and all that sort of thing. 

Mr. VENTO. I wanted to recognize Mr. LaRocco, who has been pa- tient with me. 

Mr. THOMAS. You are going to miss my question. It was an excellent one. [Laughter.] 

Mr. VENTO. It is up to Mr. LaRocco. He can call the shot on that. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to hear Mr. 

Thomas' question, but I was just going to invite our witnesses to 

advise the committee with regard to this whole fairness question and the dialogue I had with Congressmen Synar and Regula about 

fairness and the statistics. 

If we were to probe a little bit with this committee to look for 

a fair price or to institute, legislate, some more fairness into this 

program, where would you direct, both of you, this committee? Just 
86 

give me one example of where we should head. I know you are regarded as expert witnesses here. You have many years in the field, 

and this is not an indictment of what has happened in the past, 

but what rocks should we uncover? Where should we head? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Certainly one would be to take a look at what private land, similar lands in the private sector are leasing for. I 

think that is something that ought to be looked at. 

Let me just add this comment, though, Congressman. The more 

we look at the work we did in 1966-we did additional work in the 

mid-1980s, we updated that in 1992, we will have another review 

that I think will add some additional light on all this-I don't 

think, my gut reaction is that we are not going to see a silver bullet come out of this that gives us exactly the clearest answer. All 

of these pieces of information I think are going to be helpful, they 

are going to be constructive. 

The kind of question you are asking is the right one, because we 

are going to have to look at a lot of different factors and make our 

best judgments on that in terms of what that fair value is. 

Mr. LARocco. Are there any factors that are the highest priority? I am just trying to have you help us give some direction. 

Mr. PENFOLD. I think, in sync with what the Secretary's concerns 

are, is that we also must recognize we have substantial public benefit from proper management on the private lands and the stability 

of those local communities. So it is important that the taxpayers 

get properly reimbursed for the value of that forage that is used, 

but not to the point that we devastate these local communities. 

There is a tough balance, I think, in there to find. 

Mr. LARocco. Well, that stability jibes with some of my goals 

out in Idaho with regard to certainty and stability. I just heard 

what you said, but is there anything, any report, anything academically from the bureaucracy or from the economists that stands 

out, that is so relevant to this committee that you would want to 

flag it for me? 

Mr. UNGER. I guess what I am trying to say is that all of this 

information is relevant. Certainly among the pieces of information 

is this update of the grazing fee report that was done a couple of 

years ago, but there are many other sources of information that 

you need to look at as well. 

Mr. LARocco. I am going to yield my time to Mr. Thomas. I 

want to hear that question. [Laughter.] 

Mr. THOMAS. I am not sure I am going to be able to produce but 

two things very quickly, because there is another panel. 

What about longevity or being able to depend on having a lease? 

Are you concerned about 10-year versus 5-year leasing, Mr. 

Penfold? 

Mr. PENFOLD. In terms of adjustment of permitted members and 

items that are critical to taking care of the range·resource, the government has the ability and the authority to do that at any time 

during the permit period. We are always concerned about administrative activities that take away from the more productive management activities, so in looking at a 5-year versus a 10-year period 

that is something that we would think carefully about, administrative time involved 

Mr. THOMAS. Very decisive. Thank you. 
87 

Mr. PENFOLD. I thought it was a great, great question and a 

great answer. [Laughter.] 

Mr. THOMAS. There is a tenure issue here, isn't there? We are 

not just looking at the convenience of the agency. That is not our 

main interest. Our interest is in a stable agricultural community 

in the West. 

Mr. PENFOLD. My understanding is that banking institutions and 

lenders do prefer to see the longer-term permit, even though probably when you get down to the legalities of all of it, it doesn't mean 

a great deal, but the institutions tend to like that. I have been informed of that. 

Mr. THOMAS. Do you have a feeling on it, Mr. Unger, on the 

length of leases? 

Mr. UNGER. Our policy historically, of course, has been to have 

10-year permits on the grounds that it provides a measure of more 

opportunity for commitment on the part of the permittee to carry 

out range improvements and proper management and so forth. But 

this is something, if the administration wants to examine some 

shorter periods, we certainly will look at that and see whether 

there are any advantages. 

Mr. THOMAS. You hear occasionally about subleasing. If there is 

subleasing going on that is inappropriate, isn't that a management 

problem? I mean, that is against the rules. 

Mr. PENFOLD. It is against the law and the rule. 

Mr. THOMAS. Why does it seem to be a concern? If it is happening, then that is a management problem for you, isn't it? 

Mr. PENFOLD. We have normally maybe a dozen cases a year of 

subleasing that we take legal action on. Sometimes there is confusion about subleasing, which is illegal, and pasturing, which is 

legal, and there are significant differences between those two activities which I could go into if you wanted me to. 

Mr. THOMAS. I guess my point, and I think you were saying there 

were 10 cases last year, to be precise, it really isn't a significant issue. It isn't a policy issue here, is it? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I think it is an appropriate issue for there to be 

discussion on right now. 

Mr. THOMAS. You would like to see it changed, see the law 

changed? 

Mr. PENFOLD. What we think is that it is appropriate to have 

some discussion on this. We haven't concluded whether we want to 

see a change in this arena or not. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. We could ask a lot more questions, and I think we 

will just reserve the right to hand in questions in writing. 

Mr. VENTO. Not to have an editorial co~nment on the things my 

colleagues say, but the interspersed nature of the lands in terms 

of water and in terms of private lands obviously results in sharing 

or utilization of some of these permittees either through informal 

or formal agreements, which may in fact end up being a circumvention, at least in a policy nature, of what goes on here. 

I have a lot more questions, but we will relent at this point unless there are further questions of the panel members. 

[No response.] 
88 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you very much, Mr. Penfold, Mr. Unger, Mr. 

Williamson. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF JACK METZGER, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL 

LANDS COMMITTEE, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, 

ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION AND 

THE PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL; BARBARA CURTI, PRESIDENT, 

NEVADA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, ON BEHALF OF THE 

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; DR. JOHN M. FOWLER, PROFESSOR OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY; AND TOM DOUGHERTY, WESTERN 

DIVISION STAFF DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERA· 

TION 

Mr. VENTO. We then would like the next panel, whose names I 

have right here. Jack Metzger of the National Cattlemen's Association; Barbara Curti from the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation; 

John Fowler of New Mexico State University; and Tom Dougherty of the National Wildlife Federation. We appreciate their patience 

while we have sort of debated the issue among ourselves this mornin~ome of these names are familiar because the witnesses have 

been before the committee before. Your statements have been made 

part of the record. Therefore, you can feel free to summarize your 

statements or read the portions that are most appropriate to your 

presentation. We are pleased to welcome you. Mr. Metzger, please 

proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JACK METZGER 

Mr. METZGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. This is kind of interesting. Seventeen years ago my father 

appeared before this same committee, Mr. Chairman. You were 

chairman. Not very many things have changed, except we have 

changed generations. We do want to make that point. I have a few thoughts to make that would be in addition to what 

I have submitted in testimony. First is the level of confusion that 

our industry has trying to track the debate that has occurred here 

this morning. Probably the biggest issue for us, that was just discussed a minute ago again, is the question of fairness. 

The question of fairness is a relative question because we have 

to ask, "Fair to whom, and for what purpose?" Those questions are 

still loose out there. They are still floating around. Mr. LaRocco 

made reference to that. Mr. Thomas has. You have, sir. 

From our perspective, if we are going to define fairness it has to 

be in some sort of a broad overreaching sort of set of principles or 

a premise. There is a group of people out there who are capitally 

invested on the land. They are invested there. Their homes, their 

lives, their roots, their dollars, their futures are all invested in the 

lands. There are whole community structures, economic systems, 

including systems of land and resource management, that are also 

invested in on the land, part of the social and public fabric of the 

rural West. 

And so how important that is in a regional context, in a small 

community context, in a national context, will determine the relative fairness of that question of what is a fair fee, depending upon 
89 

the context, the direction of the Nation and the direction of the 

community, etcetera. 

So far I don't think this committee or this Congress or this government has decided where it wants to be on that issue, and we 

certainly don't know how to respond. In terms of a dollar fairness, 

dollar equity basis, the best approach to determine that is a simple 

economic comparison. When we consider all things, the conditions 

of lease, dollars invested, the requirements that are made upon our 

industry, that basic approach was attempted and was put into law 

in terms of the PRIA formula. 

It is interesting that there has been a lot of discussion this morning of other numbers. There has been an assumption made on the 

part of Mr. Synar, Mr. Regula here, that that formula is incorrect, 

that the results of it are incorrect. But no one has ever looked at 

that formula and done a clear and simple study of it that has survived any kind of peer review, that says it is not working. 

We have an entire argument and perception and essentially public wisdom agreement on the fact that the Federal land grazing fee 

is too low. Most of that, if not all of that, comes from one study, 

the 1986 report to Congress which, had it considered all things, 

perhaps would have amassed an appraisal that perhaps would 

have been a good number. But all things were not considered. That 

study has been soundly disputed on economic terms, statistical 

terms, etcetera. 

Again, what are we going to use as a basis for defining the parameters of this debate? We don't have that clear in our minds. I 

can tell this morning, after watching the conversation, it is not 

clear in the minds of this committee. We as an industry would happily sit down and discuss with someone, anyone, a solution, but 

based on what premise? 

Are rural communities important? Is that something we need to 

continue and to define as a realistic and good public benefit? Is production from that land important? If so, is the Congress interested 

in maintaining an equitable economic opportunity out there, or is 

it our responsibility to pay for all public benefits, all social benefits 

that might accrue under that broad category called "range"? Is that 

something we are supposed to do? 

Depending upon how we approach that, there are multitudes of 

different answers as to what is a fair fee. Frankly, from our perspective, until someone tells us under what premise we are going 

to define fairness, we don't know how to come to the table. It is 

difficult. 

From the environmental point of view, I was pleased that Congresswoman English mentioned the Six-Six thing that was done in 

Arizona. I was one of the six ranchers that was a founder of that. 

It has been a very positive and productive thing. 

One of the results of that has been a recognition from all parties 

that the system is broken; it is not working. The system of how we 

manage our Federal resources is not working. That is the grassroots level, with a broad base of people. We have Audubon, Sierra 

Club, Lions Unlimited, Earth First, wildlife people, local construction people, tire salesmen. We have everybody in our communities 

who are starting to be involved in these things, and frankly there 

is a big lack of confidence in the system and in the process. 
90 

Again, it is based on where are we going and why. If we look at 

the environmental issue that sits in front of us, it is a very carefully, well-orchestrated effort. We have seen all kinds of evidence 

to indicate that the world that the cowboys have out there is degrading. 

I don't know whether you all can see these. They are supposed 

to have been much bigger, but this is a new company that I had 

do this. These are two riparian areas in the hot desert of Arizona. 

I can pass these around to you if you would like to look at them. 

One is on a working cattle ranch and one is in a nature preserve. Biologically there is basically no difference. They are both extremely healthy. The people you see there are part of the Arizona 

Riparian Council, and on one of those pictures with the people 

walking in the stream, Representative English was there the day 

that picture was taken. 

The issue of the West being trashed by livestock is probably the 

most misrepresented thing that we have out there. Here is another 

couple of pictures, again taken very recently. These two pictures on 

the right, these two pictures are taken three-eighths of a mile 

apart this spring, same day, five or six weeks ago. One is a nature 

preserve; one is a working cattle ranch. One is cattle-free for 17 

years. The other one has cattle on it today. 

I am sure you can guess that this is a trick. The preserve is the 

one that looks like hell, frankly. It is becoming a biological desert. 

It has had no livestock on it for 17 years. The plant diversity is 

declining, the animal diversity is declining, the insect diversity is declinin~, the soil is starting to move. It is degrading terribly. 

This 1s a working cattle ranch three-eighths of a mile away. Again, there is an orchestration out there that says reality is different than what it is. This is a close-up of that same situation, a 

tremendous amount of forage here. We are actually measuring soil 

development. This is high desert, hot high desert, high elevation 

but hot desert. And on here we have actual soil erosion and it is 

being measured and it is a tragedy. This preserve is owned by the 

Audubon Society. This is a private ranch. 

The point, I guess, is that if we make the mistake with this fee 

issue, that is what we are risking. We can get that. - I took, Mr. Chairman, your bill to the ranch last weekend and 

played with the numbers. Should it pass, I am through, very simply. My family will be gone. So we can get to this point. It took 

17 years in southern Arizona. It won't take quite that long where 

I live. 

What bothers our industry is that from a social standpoint and 

an environmental standpoint and an economic standpoint is a winwin-win. We get a grazing fee, we get a product, we get a healthy 

environment, plus we have a base for multiple use. We have wildlife, we have healthy watersheds, together. 

This is cattle-free, where we have broken and denied that natural biological symbiosis that exists between grazing and herding 

animals and land. We have denied that. We said it doesn't work. 

So here we have a degrading watershed, a simplifying plant community, no product, no grazing fee, and no jobs in the community. 

So the questions that our industry cannot figure out how to work 

with you, work with Congress, is on what basis are we going to de-
91 

termine a grazing fee? What is the basic direction we are trying to 

go, and why? And then a grazing fee will be simple to solve. 

But as long as we are defining this issue in terms of too many wildlife or not enough, or riparian degradation or not, or dollars 

here and dollars there, are we responsible to pay for the wild horse 

and burro program, et cetera, et cetera, until those questions are 

answered, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how we can be constructive 

in this process. We are willing to. We would like to. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Metzger follows:] 
92 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY 

THE PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL 

NATIONAL CA'ITLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

ON 

H.R. 1602 AND H.R. 643 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

Submitted by: 

Randall Brewer, President, Public Lands Council 

and 

Jack Metzger 

Chairman, Federal Lands Committee, National Cattlemen's Association 

The Public Lands Council represents the 31,000 western ranchers who graze cattle and sheep on federal lands in the 14 western states, and coordinates the federal land policies of the National 

Cattlemen's Association, American Sheep Industry Associatiion and the Association of National 

Grasslands. The National Cattlemen's Association is the national spokesman for all segments of 

the beef cattle industry -- including cattle breeders, producers, and feeders. The NCA represents 

approximately 230,000 cattlemen. Membership includes individual members as well as 46 

affiliated state cattle associations and 29 breed associations. 
93 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jack Metzger. My family owns 

and operates a cattle ranch in northern Arizona near Flagstaff. 

I am here today as both the representative of the Public Lands Council and Chairman of the 

Federal Lands Commirtee of the National Cattlemen's Association. The Public Lands Council 

represents 31,000 Americans who graze livestock on lands managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management, Forest Service and the National Grasslands. The Public Lands Council's Board of 

Directors is comprised of permittee representatives from each of the 14 western states where 

federal lands grazing occurs. In addition, the Board includes representation from the Association 

of National Grasslands, the American Sheep Industry Association and the National Cattlemen's 

Association. 

Mr. Chairman, the attempt in Congress to discredit the current, properly functioning federal 

grazing fee formula has been undertaken for four consecutive years now in numerous forums. 

I'm sure the perennial task of debating the merits of the federal gmzing fee has become a 

tiresome one for you and Members of the Subcommirtee; this is certainly the case for the 

livestock industry. What is most unfortunate is the fact that the issue has been a highly charged 

emotional one, and this has gravely distorted the issue. These distortions of reality have made 

"news", and, in rum, created a national perception that fuels this debate. The western livestock 

industry eagerly wants, and needs, to resolve the grazing fee debate once and for all as the 

livelihoods of thousands of responsible, family ranchers hang in the balance due to the clouded 

uncertainty that has resulted from the annual, unjustified attempts to significantly alter the 

federal grazing fee. 

The western livestock industry supports the current Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA) 

grazing fee formula for two primary reasons. First, it is the~ system made available to date 

that defines an equitable fee for the price of federal forage· for this is what a livestock producer 

who utilizes federal lands pays for· and provides for equal opportunity, all things considered, 

year after year between federal and private lands ranchers. Second, there has not been iiJl: peer 

review evaluation • not even by harsh opponents • which says that PRIA does not accomplish 

what it was enacted to do. 

When the PRIA formula was enacted in 1978, it had strong approval from virmally all affected 

interests, from livestock producers throughout the industry to environmentalists to budget experts 

because it provided for an equitable fee and provided certainty for ranchers year after year. 

Federal lands ranchers aren't asking for grazing fees that would be counter to the livestock 

industry's, the public's or the western range's best interests nor are they opposed to an equitable 

fee. We are asking only for a means of determining an equitable fee considering the unique cost 

of production and lower efficiency inherent in federal lands as dictated by the PRIA in 1978. 

The fact that the federal grazing fee is lower than the typical "fee" a private lands rancher pays to 

rent private land has never been disputed by the western livestock industry, but it is extremely 

inappropriate to compare federal lands grazi.'lg fees with private pasture rents. In addition, the 

grazing fee does not reflect the rancher who uses federal lands total cost of production. Much of 

the confusion over the grazing fee issue comes from attempts to compare it with the "private 

lease rate." In a private lease situation, the rancher buys for one price, exclusive access and 

complete control of a self-sufficient production unit. In contrast, the federal fee buys only one 

component of that production unit--the grass. The federal lands are dependent upon privately 

owned water rights, privately owned intermingled lands, and privately developed improvements 

in order to have productivity. 

When the law which enacted PRIA expired in 1985, and was consequently re-established by 

Executive Order 12548, there was a gigantic outcry from those who, for various reasons, were 

opposed to the formula. Since then, the basic argument against the fee is that it is too low. As a 

result, the Secretaries of The Interior and Agriculture produced a report in February of 1986, 

69-312 0 - 93 - 4 
94 

Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation, which, instead of reviewing the PRJA fee structure, 

appraised and evaluated the market value of forage on the range and concluded that the rancher 

using federal lands was paying much less for forage than the private lands rancher. This report, 

however, did not take into consideration the conditions of lease which add to the total cost of 

production and. therefore, that study was so controversial that neither of the Secretaries of The 

Interior or Agriculru:re would sign the completed report for submission to Congress. 

But we've seen that this repon, as well as a second similar agency forage study last year that 

merely updated the 1986 study with the same conclusions, is terribly flawed. The New 

Perspectives On Grazing Fees And Public Land Management In The 1990's, produced last year 

in a Repon to Congress by Drs. Thomas J. Dudley and Gerhard N. Rostvold at Pepperdine 

University's Graduate School of Business in Malibu, California, found that "the "Mass 

Appraisal" approach to valuation used by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management in the 1986 and 1992 grazing fee studies yielded highly questionable conclusions, 

and the probability that the data used to draw final conclusions accurately reflects the data 

collected is less than one percent." Among other things, the Pepperdine repon found that 

''Congress has not been given the minimum accountability mandated by law from the agencies. 

One can only conclude that, at best, the Congress has been ill-served. or at worst, it has been 

misled." The "forage study repon" in 1986 and update in 1992 has given opponents of PRJA to 

this day the unix "document" to waive in their debate to dismantle the PRJA formula. Is 

Congress going to continue to allow this report to be the centerpiece of debate in resolving the 

grazing fee issue? If so, the futu:re condition of America's federal lands and our production of 

food and fiber is in grave trouble. 

The western livestock industry believes that Congress must answer two questions in order to 

settle this debate once and for all: Do you want livestock producers to continue ranching on the 

federal range, and if so, are fees - with all things considered - going to be equitable with privale 

land rents? Because of the present ambiguity of those answers, most ranchers who are dependent on federal lands believe the furu:re of their ranches to be very unstable. If the answer to these 

questions is "yes," then Jet's proceed with sound numbers and science and put this emotiondriven, misinfonnation-based problem to bed- for a very long rest. 

The livestock industry is willing to work with Congress to resolve the debate over grazing fees ... in its proper forum, the authorizing committees, where all the credible data can be reviewed so that policy can be established that takes into account the long-term ramifications of legislation. 

Livestock producers are weary of the distractions thrust upon them by those who deal in 

misperceptions rather than reality. We are anxious to get back to the ground where they can preserve the past, produce for the present, and provide for the future. 
95 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you for your statement. We will get back with 

a question or two in a moment, but at this time we want to make 

sure that all the panelists have a chance to testify. 

We are pleased to welcome Barbara Curti from Nevada Farm 

Bureau Federation. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA CURTI 

Ms. CURTI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Barbara 

Curti, president of the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation. I am here 

today to represent the American Farm Bureau Federation. My family owns and operates cattle ranches in Nevada and California. 

The American Farm Bureau Federation supports the current 

grazing fee formula. Earlier this year Farm Bureau voting delegates from all 50 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ap- proved a policy which calls for grazing fees equitably established on 

the basic economic principles of the current grazing fee formula for 

Federal lands, and established in statutes rather than by executive 

order. 

The current formula, first set by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act, has worked for the industry, the land involved, and for 

the Federal Government. PRIA has worked for the industry because it is stable and consistent. It has worked for the land involved, as evidenced by the continued improvement of our Nation's 

rangeland. PRIA has worked for the Federal Government and the 

Nation's taxpayers. 

Without the presence of ranchers on the land, the Federal Government would face the choice of expending many scarce tax dollars to provide management and labor on the ground or allowing 

the resource to degrade. But from our perspective PRIA has also 

had its failings. Of the nearly 23 million animal unit months permitted for use in 1991, some 5 million were not utilized. The 

nonuse of such an important sustainable and renewable resource 

can be attributed to two factors, total cost of operation and denial 

of credit. 

The grazing fee is but a part of the total cost of operating on Federal land. Ranchers are passing up use of the permits or dropping 

permits because they are too expensive. The banking industry has 

concerns about PRIA, as well, not that it believes the formula 

doesn't work, but the attacks on PRIA create uncertainty. 

I know, Mr. Chairman, that your other committee assignment 

has made you particularly aware of the banking industry's aversion 

to uncertainty. Some bankers in the West have ceased making operating loans to some permittees because they feel the fee could 

rise to the point where their ranch customers will have no choice 

but to default. Young ranchers are unable to obtain financing to 

buy ranches. 

We need to resolve the contentious issue of grazing fees and we 

need to do it this year. As I have stated, Farm Bureau supports 

PRIA, but if we cannot have PRIA, what do we support? 

Unfortunately, when alternatives are discussed, all too often the 

discussion centers around numbers. Numbers are important, but 

fee levels do not exist in a vacuum. For any meaningful resolution 

to the grazing fee issue to occur, four main points must be ad-
96 

dressed and agreed to before Farm Bureau would support a new 

fee structure. 

First, the fee must be fair and equitable. 

Second, the permit must provide reasonable tenure so that the 

rancher has the incentive to make investments and long-term improvements on public land. We are pleased to hear that Secretary Babbitt recently stated that land tenure is probably the single most 

important factor in keeping livestock grazing on the land. We 

agree. 

Third, the rancher needs to know that the carrying capacity of 

the permit will not be diminished without justifiable reasons. We 

should provide incentives for enhancement of the range so that 

more AUMs are permitted and judiciously used. 

Last, permits must have practical and flexible management requirements. All too often ranchers are asked to follow management guidelines that lack common sense. We know the land, its potential, its problems and its needs. Management plans must recognize 

ranching economics, and management practices need to have benefits as well as costs. 

Mr. Chairman, we sincerely want to resolve the grazing fee issue. 

Many of our members are baffled and bewildered by the current 

turmoil surrounding the grazing fee issue. The grazing fee program is not a subsidy program. We are not abusing the land resource. 

It is in our interest to protect the land for both future generations and the Nation. 

We want a future in ranching. To whatever extent needed, we 

will work to that end. Ranchers are looking forward to being actively involved in Secretary Babbitt's town meetings over the next 

few weeks. Many will be stressing what I have discussed here 

today. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Curti follows:] 
97 

;.: 

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 225 TOUHY AVENUE· PARK RIDGE • ILLINOIS· 60068 • (312) 399-5700 ·FAX (312) 399-5896 

600 MARYLAND AVENUE SW ·SUITE 800 ·WASHINGTON, D.C.· 20024 • (202} 484-3600 ·FAX {202) 484·3604 

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 

TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

WITH REGARD TO GRAZING FEES 

Presented by 

Barbara Curti, President 

Nevada Farm Bureau Federation 

April 20, 1993 
98 

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 

TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

WITH REGARD TO GRAZING FEES 

Presented by 

Barbara Curti, President, 

Nevada Farm Bureau Federation 

April 20, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Barbara Curti. I am President of the Nevada Farm Bureau 

Federation, and I am here today to represent the American Farm Bureau Federation. I am a 

rancher, and my family has permits to graze our livestock on federal lands. 

The American Farm Bureau Federation supports the current grazing fee formula. 

Earlier this year, Farm Bureau voting delegates from all 50 states and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico approved policy which calls for "grazing fees equitably established on the basic 

economic principles of the current grazing fee formula for federal lands and established in 

statute rather than by executive order." 

The current formula, fmt set by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA), has 

worked for the industry, the land involved and for the federal government. 

PRIA has worked for the industry because it is stable and consistent. It has reflected 

the difference in total cost between private land grazing leases and a federal government 

forage permit. I call it a forage permit, because forage, the plant matter that our livestock 

consumes, is what we pay for. Until we recognize that forage use is but one of many uses 

provided by federal lands, the issue of federal land grazing will continue to be shrouded in 

myth and misinformation. 

The PRlA formula has worked for the land involved as evidenced by the continued 

improvement of our nation's rangelands. Any abuses that may have occurred in the past by 

the livestock industry have been addressed. Although we need to remain ever vigilant. it 

must be acknowledged that those in the industry who abuse the land are the rare exception, 

not the nonn. The stability of the industry, through PRIA, has allowed permittees to have the 

confidence to provide the management and capital necessary to improve and enhance the 

range. 

PRIA has worked for the federal government and the nation's taxpayers. More than 

30,000 ranch families provide management and care for our federal lands. Without their 

presence on the land, the federal government would face the choice of expending many scarce 

tax dollars to provide management and labor on the ground or allowing the resource to 

degrade. The land stewardship of federal forage permittees has generally been ignored by 
99 

-2 

detractors of this use, though the stewardship ethic is as much a part of a rancher as his hat 

or his horse. 

But from our perspective PRIA also has had its failings. 

Of the nearly 23 million Animal Unit Months (AUM)s permitted for use in 1991, 

some 5 million were not utilized. The non-use of such an important sustainable and 

renewable resource can be attributed to two factors- total cost of operation and denial of 

credit. 

The grazing fee is but a part of the total cost of operating on the federal lands. Those 

of us who use the federal land forage find ourselves providing goods and services that we do 

not need to provide in a private land lease. Permittees typically provide fencing, roads and 

water development on permits, while these are generally included in a private land lease 

arrangement Additionally, we are operating on land that is too high, too dry, too cold or too 

rough to have been taken up by our homesteading forefathers. It has productive use, but it is 

more expensive to utilize or harvest the forage when compared to private land opportunities. 

Ranchers are passing up use of the permits, or dropping permits, because they are too 

expensive. 

The banking industry has concerns about PRIA as well. Not that it believes the 

formula doesn't work, but the attacks on PRIA and the proposals that have been advanced in 

Congress create uncertainty about the industry. I know, Mr. Chairman, that your other 

committee assignment has made you particularly aware of the banking industry's aversion to 

uncertainty. Some bankers in the west have ceased making operating loans to some 

permittees because they feel the fee could rise to the point where their ranch customers will 

have no choice but to default. 

Young ranchers are unable to obtain financing to buy ranches. Our industry is a 

family industry, but we are losing the ability to pass on our ranches, our way of life, our 

stewardship ethic and the irreplaceable knowledge of how to produce food and fiber in a 

natural and environmentally sound manner to future generations. 

We need to resolve the contentious issue of grazing fees-and we need to do it this 

year-not only for this generation, but also for the next. 

As I have stated, Farm Bureau supports PRIA. But if we cannot have PRIA, then 

what do we support? 

Unfortunately, when alternatives are discussed, all too often the discussion centers 

around numbers. Numbers are important, but fee levels do not exist in a vacuum. For any 

meaningful resolution to the grazing fee issue to occur, four main points must be addressed 

and agreed to before Farm Bureau would support a new fee structure. 
100 

-3-

First, the fee must be fair and equitable. It needs to reflect the real economic 

differences between private land lease rates and federal forage pennits. It needs to have 

stability. 

Second, the pennit must provide reasonable tenure so that the rancher has the 

incentive to make investments and long-term improvements on public land. Not only is 

ranching a commitment to a way of life, but it also is a lifelong commitment. We in the 

ranching business must take a long-term view of our operations. In order to capitalize and 

justify improvements and enhancements of a federal land permit, the rancher has to know that 

he or she will have the necessary time to pay for those improvements and enhancements. We 

are pleased to hear that Secretary Babbitt recently stated that "land tenure is probably the 

single most important factor in keeping livestock grazing on the land." We agree. 

Furthermore, the rancher needs to know that the carrying capacity of the permit will 

not be diminished without justifiable reasons. Indeed, we need to encourage activities on our 

rangelands that will allow for better utilization of the forage. We should provide incentives 

for enhancement of the range so that more AUMs are permitted and judiciously used. This 

would go a long way to increasing federal revenues and enlisting ranchers in a cooperative 

management program. 

Last, permits must have practical and flexible management requirements. We want to 

see a real partnership with the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service in 

managing this resource. It is in our best interest to make that partnership work. But all too 

often, ranchers are asked to follow management guidelines that lack common sense. We 

know the land, its potential, its problems and its needs. If ranchers are to be required to live 

under a management plan, it is imperative that we have some input in its design. 

Furthermore, the management plans must recognize ranching economics, and that 

management practices need to have benefits as well as costs. 

Mr. Chairman, we sincerely want to resolve the grazing fees issue of grazing fees. 

Many of our members are baffled and bewildered by the current turmoil surrounding the 

grazing fee issue. The grazing program is not a subsidy program. We are not abusing the 

land resource. It is in our interest to protect the land for both future generations and the 

nation. We want a future in ranching. To whatever extent needed, we will work to that end. 

Ranchers are looking forward to being actively involved in Secretary Babbitt's "town 

meetings" over the next few weeks. Many will be stressing the points I have discussed with 

you today. 

Thank you for this opponunity. 
101 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

Dr. Fowler from New Mexico State University, welcome. Please 

proceed with your statement, doctor. I know that you have a long 

statement, so if you can summarize it, it would be helpful, so we 

can hear from all the witnesses before we have to break for some 

work on the floor. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. FOWLER 

Dr. FOWLER. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much 

for the opportunity to be here in front of you and the distinguished 

members of this committee. 

I will focus my discussion primarily on the appraised base value 

that is the subject of much controversy. We will keep away from 

the numbers game because I believe, as has been previously presented, that that is a regulated number that does not respond to 

economic factors directly except in certain instances where an individual can take reduced numbers due to economic conditions or resource conditions. 

When you examine the appraised base value, which is included 

both in H.R. 643 and H.R. 1602, there is commonality there. There 

are several firsts. I think it is the first time that the stack of literature of critique is larger than the voluminous report in itself. I 

think it is also the first time that economists agreed that this report is without merit. I would like to expound on those conditions, 

if I may, Mr. Chairman. 

I am not quite as critical as the Pepperdine report in criticizing 

the very paper it was written on. However, I think there are some 

very important pieces that were put forward by both Pepperdine, 

by Oregon State University, by Utah State University, New Mexico 

State University, the University of Wyoming, and the list goes on 

and on. 

Number one, the appraised base value is not the fundamental 

question that was asked and addressed in the 1966 study. The 

question addressed in 1966 was what fee equalizes the total costs 

between Federal land grazing and private grazing. The appraised 

base value does not address that question. The appraised base value looks at the value of exchange. It does 

not look at the value in use. There is a very important distinction 

between these two measurements, Mr. Chairman. 

The appraised base value also makes some horrendous assumptions on comparability. We have heard those already addressed 

today. Are private lands comparable to Federal lands? Obviously they are not in terms of productivity, but I would address and focus 

your attention on Table 1. That would indicate that the Federal 

lands, both the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest 

Service require from 11 to 12 acres per animal unit month, whereas the private lands require slightly over 4 acres per animal unit 

month, Mr. Chairman. These lands are not directly comparable. 

The State sections which we have talked about already today, established in 1988 by the Ferguson Act, in 1912 by the Enabling 

Act, and then on a random basis sections 216, 32 and 36, given a 

much more random basis and are much more equivalent and representative of the average productivity by State. That, as you see, 

is directly in line at 6 acres per animal unit month. The best lands 
102 

were homesteaded first. They are not comparable. They should not 

be the basis for comparison with the residual Federal lands. 

In addition, Mr. Chairman, the appraised base value of the 1983 

study was looking at no discount for services that are tendered in 

these cattle care contracts on private lands. Not only is there a 

quality difference, there is a total cost difference in grazing livestock per animal unit month. There is also a difference in the particulars of the transaction. 

Services and facilities on private land transactions are not comparable to what you would receive in a Federal land lease. They 

should be adJusted. I appreciate the problem that the appraisers 

had in 1983 m trying to determine the value of these factors. It is 

a very confusing and confounding element in the issue. 

In 1985 we did the same study, the exact same design that the 

Federal Government did in New Mexico. They reported 280 results. 

We found 650 separate private land leases and attempted to value 

these services and facilities. Rather than the 5 percent value, it 

was subjectively determined by the appraisers and incorporated in 

their appraisal base value. 

Indeed, the value of the services and facilities comprised 33 percent of the gross transaction price on private lands. That is a very, 

very important figure to be retained, Mr. Chairman. Not only do 

we have a productivity difference, we have a difference in facilities 

and services. To make the appropriate adjustments, you must compare forage to forage. 

Forage is a derived demand. It is a function of the productivity 

factor and it is also a function of the value of the final :product. AB 

livestock prices have been high in the last five years, It has kept 

animals on the land. Aa the sheep prices have dropped, and we 

have all seen the crush in the American sheep industry, you see 

vacant allotments. That is how the market system works within 

the livestock industry. 

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief in terms of the methodology. It is 

replete with errors, insufficient sample size, lack of proportionate 

weighting by State, no correlation, at least as accounting through time, multi-colinearit;r between the variables, and on and on. This 

list of academic criticisms must be made. 

To you, Mr. Chairman, to reexamine your use of the appraised base value, I noticed in your own mind you must be skeptical of 

this value because you have chosen the lowest one for one region. 

What about the others? There is room for skepticism. You will also 

notice in the 1983 update, from 1983 to 1992, the appraisers themselves said they reJected any lease over 10 years old, yet they 

themselves went on leases that were taken from 1981 to 1983 and 

said, "No change to 1992." A little difference in terms of their approach, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe if we take all these factors into consideration-and Mr. 

Representative, you are asking for pieces to examine, rocks to look 

under-the study should not be cast away. The methodology should 

be reexamined. It does have a basis for one point in time. 

If you will also look at Federal land being exchanged on a competitive lease in the private sector, we have an example in New 

Mexico, the McGregor Range. The data there would indicate that 

in the last two grazing years, and services that are provided by the 
103 

Bureau that aren't provided in other Federal leases, indeed the 

value of Federal forage1 high quality, the best quality Federal forage, is in the range of '!12.70 an animal unit month. This should be 

used as an upper limit, Mr. Chairman, because there is no compensability requirement on those particular lands and it is indeed the 

highest quality. 

Mr. Chairman, I would compliment you on the choice of usage of 

the forage value index as a method in moving through time. It did 

keep the ratio between the private land value, lease value in 1966, 

and the value of the fee that equalized the $1.23; it has kept that 

value constant to 1993. The ratio was .337 in 1966. The ratio is 

still .337 in 1993. It is a mechanism of moving through time. 

What is not incorporated in that mechanism is a transfer of responsibility from the Federal Government to the permittee. He has 

had additional maintenance responsibilities that have increased his 

cost of operation, and therefore even again the forage value index 

should be viewed as an upper limit through time. But it does track 

and it does account for inflation, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you for the time. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Fowler follows:] 
104 

Testimony to the 

Subcommittee on 

NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBUC LANDS 

of the 

OOMMI'ITEE ON 

INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

House of Representatives 

ONE HUNDRED and THIRD OONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

on 

H.R.l602 

To reform the management on the public lands 

H.R. 643 

To raise grazing fees on public lands 

Hearing Held in Washington D.C. April 20, 1993 

by 

Dr. John M. Fowler 

Professo• of Agricultural Economics 

New Mexico State University 

1 
105 

INTRODUCI'ION 

Mr. Chairman and members of the esteemed subcommittee, I appreciate the: 

opportunity to address you on the topic of federal grazing fees. 

Controversy and federal land gra;dng fees have emerged as synonymous terms. The 

issues have evolved and matured to the extent that emotion, which can rapidly surge and 

abate, is being careful1y controlled by coalitions of special interest groups. The coalitions 

work diligently to "market" their respectfve positions. Political ramifications are always 

paramount. However, recent effort has been directed toward educating the general public 

that is further removed from agricultural production practices with each new urban and 

suburban generation. 

The bean of the controversy is who shall "control" federal land. The power struggle 

evolves around two central themes; the trend in ecological condition of westerN rangelands 

and the price level that simultaneously provides a reasonable rate of return to the federal 

treasury and a positive rerum to rancher pennittees. Ecological condition assessment is 

conducted by the managing agency which determines a long-run carrying capacity for each 

allotment. The long-run carrying capacity can be adjusted through suspended preference 

or voluntary reduction, i.e. taking non-use or by applying for temporary non-renev.:able 

increases in stocking rate if resource conditions are favorable. The end result i~ that the 

number of livestock are regulated and do not respond to traditional economic factors. 

Therefore, the supply of fontge allocated to livestock is relatively fixed in terms of the 

number of animal unit months (AUMs). Thus directing attention to the cost of the federal 

forage as a factor of production to the livestock industry 3.lld as a source of revenue for the 

federal government of leasing a renewable natural resource. 

The bills under consideration for this hearing (H.R. 643 and ILR. 1602) both present 

new mechanisms to price federal forage and have a common formula used to arrive at a fair 

market value. (FMV). 

Fair Market Value = Appraised Base Va}ue x Forage Va!ue Index 

100 

It is this adjustment mechanism that is the focus of my testimony. The formula 

originated from the 1986 report prepared jointly by the Secretary of Agriculture and 

Secretary of the Interior entitled "Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation". 

The literature is replete with references questioning virtually all aspects of this study. 

The most recent was a report prepared by Professor Rostvold and Dudley from Pepperdine 

University. This report is a scathing attacK on the Mass Appraisal approach, the analytical 

methodology and the altering of data. The authors detailed the steps of the performance 

tested "Scientific Method" with respect to the 1986 and 1992 Grazing Fee Review and 

Evaluation and concluded that "if the most important beginning step, i.e. the statement of 

the problem and the most important analytical step. i.e. analysis and interpretation, were not 

2 
106 

performed appropriately how can the conclusions reached be appropriate. All conclusions 

advanced as a result of this study are suspect. • These same conclusions were expressed in 

1985 by Nielson et al from Utah State University and again in my own testimony to this very 

subcommittee on September 22ncl, 1987. 

MASS Appmisal Teclm:iqucs 

The mass appraisal technique was selected as an appropriate technique to determine 

the rental value of federal forage based on the market rental value of private native 

rangeland. Mass appraisal is defined as ''The process of valuing a universal of properties 

as of a given date in a uniform order, utilizing standard methodology, employing a common 

reference of data, and allowing for statistical testing. • The technique relies solely on market 

data and does not incorporate the income approach to value or the replacement cost 

depreciated approach to value. Differences in these approaches are usually reconciled. The 

income approach bas historically been lower than the market value; this would indicate that 

market values should be viewed as upper limits. 

The mass appraisal technique may provide an indication of the market rental rates 

but this rate is for aspecific point in time. The period studied was 1983 through 1984, which 

was a peak lease period. The peak was both in terms of numbers of leases but equally 

important the prices of the grazing lease were at an all-time high as evidenced by the 

competitive lease bids on the McGregor Range. In addition to the questions of the 

appropriate time period, value in exchange versus value in use; the question of comparability 

of public to private lease must be examined. 

Another major point is that in water based states, which e:rist in the southwestern 

portion of our cotmtry, each parcel of land is associated with water. Inclusion of leases 

without direct inclusion of the whole water unit constitutes appraisal by parts and grossly 

overvalues parcels that don't have water but are serviced by water trom adjoining land not 

included in the appraisal. 

The market value approach of the mass appraisal technique examines similar 

properties and makes adjustments necessary to improve comparability. Some very strong 

assumptions were necessary before the properties could be considered similar. The 

appraisers concluded that similarity exists based on five factors: (1) on-sight stock water, (2) 

similar season of use, (3) similar availability of access, (4) similar ranges in size, and (5) 

similarities in pricing size. Each "similarity" must be considered and must outweigh the 

dissimilarities. A major concern would be the comparability of management objectives; is 

the "highest and best use" of private profit maximization similar to the agency objective of 

multiple use and sustained yield? Are the services, facilities and improvements involved in 

the private leases similar to the service facilities and improvements of the federal lands? 

Is the inherent quality of the land similar or were the best quality lands homesteaded first, 

thereby making the deeded private lands higher in quality then the retained federaJ lands? 

Broad generalizations of rangeland productivity are evident in table L Federal lands 

were the least productive with 112 and 12.1 acres respectively required to suppon an AUM. 

The average capacity for state land is roughly seven actes per AUM or nearly 8 head per 

Section on a year-round basis. Private fee simple land rated as the most productive 

averaging 4.2 acres/AUM westwide or 12..7 head per section. 

3 
107 

Table 1. Acres required per AUM of Grazing in the Western States. 

STATE BLM USFS 

ARIZONA 11.43 10.49 

CALIFORNIA 13.20 15.79 

COLORADO 14.90 1276 

IDAHO 10.18 17.()2 

I MONTANA 7.41 10.37 

NEVADA 16.48 15.42 

NEW MEXICO 9.47 11.91 

NORTH DAKOTA 6.21 5.14 

OREGON 10.70 13.82 

NE&SD 5.10 6.00 

UTAH 19.16 10.85 

WASHINGTON 9.37 11.94 

WYOMING 8.21 10.93 

WEIGHTED' 

AVERAGE 11.19 1209 

'Weighted by number of responses in suxvey for each state. 

'Irrigated Pasture was probably included in these figures. 

Source: Survey of 4200 Western livestock Ranches 

STATE 

7.80 

N/A 

4/12 

10.21 

5.48 

10.09 

5.78 

2.80 

8.32 

4...33 

8.34 

8.18 

7.11 

6.74 

PRIVATE' 

7.42 

4.86 

2.45 

3.32 

3.22 

5.44 

4.88 

2.88 

5.56 

2.83 

2.78 

4.93 

4.19 

4.20 

Forage quality, combined with rangeland features such as topography, slope, aspect, 

relief, elevation, and rangeland developments, such as water (Tembo, 1990} determined the 

range's actual value (Rowlands and Stuth., 1989, Squires, 1988). Range/animal performance 

interactions were not considered in the 1986 study. Herd performance, individual weight 

gains, calf crops, weaning weights, etc., indicate that performance is higher on private 

rangelands than public (Stoddart and Smith, 1943, Holechek, In Press). Higher grazing fees 

would be obtainable for rangelands that provide peak animal performance. 

4 
108 

The value of the forage, whether it is public or private is a result of derived demand 

for that factor of production.. The more efficient the factor and the higher the value of the 

final product imputes a higher fee for the factor; i.e. a higher marginal value product 

attnbutable to the factor. 

Appraisal Methodology and Analysis 

The overall mass appraisal approach does have merit and validity if conducted 

correctly. However, adjustments are necessa:IY. It was the ability to analyze and make 

appropriate inferences that were seriously deficient in the 1986 Gr.uing Fee Evaluation 

Report. 

There was no scientific or statistical credibility to the method of analysis or the 

conclusions drawn in this grazing fee study. Actual survey sample size was much too small 

to lend itself to statistical validity. The actual number of lease transactions for mature cattle 

that had at least 70 percent nonfederal ownership was only 1,131 leases in 1983 for an six 

pricing regions of the west. The total was 3,101 observations for the period between 1977 

thru 1983. In certain areas surveys targeted the wrong people (i.e. farmers). Farmers 

seldom lease native range. They lease improved pasture and/or crop aftermath (fodder). 

Prices for these leases are generally much higher due to "quality" of forage and "availability 

of forage". Specific entities were selectively left off the mailing list for the survey. Union 

Pacific Rm1road, the largest landlord ill Wyoming, was =Iuded from the Wyomiug data set, 

(Kearl, 1986). Their grazing fees were much lower than most of the targeted survey groups. 

Area responses were not weighted to give a clear picture of private land lease rates. 

Nevada, an area of lower lease rates had only 12 responses to the survey, while California, 

the area of highest lease rates had 332 responses, (Kearl, 1986). Since no weighting factor 

was developed a bias may have been created that indicates a higher private land grazing fee 

for the western U.S. Observations of 1 year leases exceed those for an other periods by 120 

percent. Thus an analysis that includes a disproportionate share of 1 year leases wlll skew 

and bias results toward higher lease fees. Therefore, incorrect inferences Wl11 likely be 

drawn unless adjustments are made for a longer term of lease. Ninety-five percent of the 

private leases were five years or Jess, 69 percent of private leases were for one year or less, 

which is not representative of the ten-year federal permits (Public Land Council, 1984). 

Another fatal flaw of the analysis was the practice of counting each year of a lease 

as a separate observation. In statistical analysis, each observation must be independent. 

This leads to a statistical problem known as autocorrelation resulting in disproportionate 

weighting. When observations are made aver time a "disturbance" occurring at one period 

wi![ carry over imo other periods because of lack of independence (Kmenta, 1971). There 

were three fundamental problems with autocorrelation, wbich apply to this study. First, 

unbiased estimates of the population were not obtaiued. Second, least squares formulas for 

sampling variances of the regression coefficients (used ill statistical analysis), resulted in a 

serious underestimate of sample variances. In any case these formulas are no longer valid, 

nor are the precise forms of the 1 and E tests derived for the linear model. 11Urd, inefficient 

predictions were obtained, that is predictions with needlessly large sample variances 

(Johnston, 1963}. 

5 
109 

Individual leases that included different classes or species of livestock were separated 

into different samples. This leads to a problem in statistical analysis referred to as 

multicollinearity. The consequences of creating a data set that has linear dependence 

between the explanatory variables are as follows: 

1. "The precision of estimation falls so that it becomes very difficult, if not 

impossible, to disentangle the relative infl:acDces of the various X variables. This l0$s of 

precision has three aspects: specific estimates may have very large er.rors; these errors may 

be highly correlated, one with another; and the sampling 'IIBliances o! the coefficients will 

be very large. 

2. Investigators are sometimes led to drop variables incorrectly from an analysis 

because their coefficients are not significantly different from zero, but the true situation may 

not be that the variable has no effect but simply that the set of sample data has not enabled 

the variation to be isolated. 

3. Estimates of coefficients become very sensitive to particul.ar sets of sample data, 

and the addition of a few more observation can sometimes produce dramatic shifts in some 

of the coefficients" (Johnston, 1963, pg 160). 

The authors' inability to account for multicollinearity prohlbited an accurate valuation 

of services provided in the private lease. This resulted in a highly subjective five percent 

estimate for services that had no foundation or credibility. 

The statistical analysis performed did not properly treat the presence of heterogeneity 

in the range livestock industry. This is a major problem since data cannot properly be 

aggregated unless it is similar. Data aggregation, in spite of obvious heterogeneity, is 

another fatal flaw of this study. The appraisers stratified the western U.S. into six "price 

areas" based on their criteria of "reasonable homogenous prices". The stratifications were 

inappropriate in that there exists a great deal of variability within and among subfiles. There 

appear to be twenty-fold differences, or more, between the lowest and highest prices within 

any price area and subfilc. Differences of 100-fold or more o=r, and differences of only 

10-fold seem to be the exception in subfiles with significant numbers of observations (Kearl, 

1986). 

Categorizing lease samples into subfiles without testing for statiStical differences is 

unacceptable. If differences occur they needed to be accounted for, not "dismissed". 

Reasons far excluding individual subfil.es: from analysis were inconsistent and scientifically 

invalid. It was inappropriate to include sub.file G in an analysis of native range when subfile 

G was defined to include observations with greater than ten percent irrigated or sub-irrigated 

pasn1re. Only areas undergrazed (75 percent of carrying capacity) and overgrazed (125 

percent of carrying capacity) were included in subfile D. Why separate these from "normal 

stocking rate" if they are all included in final analysis? "Why were leases that had not been 

renegotiated within the past 10 years deleted from subfile I, which is defined as ownership 

as 100 percent corporate, railroad, or state? Subfile J contains rr.u:u;actions with on-site 

stock:water and vegetative cover predominately native and less than ten percent of the lease 

subirrigated or irrigated. This subfile was included into the overall computation of private 

lease rates and was also used to determine the value of federal lease rates. This could cause 

bias of the means, by drawing the mean of the private lease rate closer to the mean of the 

Federal lease rate. 

6 
110 

Subfile A includes those leases with transactions that were considered being based 

an "other than Fair Market Value". They were deleted from consideration for this reason 

but who is to consider "other than Fair Market Value" (Gray, 1986). This adds another 

confounding factor. Subfile B leases that were paid in alternative methods, were also 

deleted. Tiris "alternative method" sllould have beet~ coi!Vened into monetary value and 

included. Subfile E, those leases that were considered "take in " leases, was also excluded 

from consideration in the final analysis. It sllould have been included after services, facilities, 

and improvements were valued and subtncted to detennine the value of the forage. 

Clipping. removing the top and bottom 15 percent of the data, is not acceptable in 

statistical or in economic theocy. Ranching in the western United States is heterogeneous, 

clipping distorts the data even more. The true variation in the ranching industry is not 

represented. The !·test, which was used for statistical analysis, assumes normality, clipping 

assumes the data is not.normally distnbuted. It was also stated that the data shaw strong 

correlation among the lease variables, but this is not presented or discussed further. 

The variability in grazing fees charged on private rangelands was brushed off as 

"obviously erroneous or misstated". The factors respoDS!ble; "cost of services" by the lessors, 

were excluded from consideration in pricmg leases, yet they are critical in explaining 

variations in grazing fees on priVate lands. Services and fae~1itics are a major reason grazing 

fees on private rangeland are higher. undlord services ao.d faCilities conmbute 

approximately 33 percent of the market rental rate (MRR) (Fowler, et aL, 1985). These 

services and facilities arc oot provided on federal lands grazing. Fallure to include service 

and facilities prohibits a direct comparison to private land grazing fees. Services include 

but are not limited to; direct "caretaking of the livestock", doctoring, supplemental feeding, 

salting, rotating livestock, and repairs to improvements. Facilities include use of 

headquarters, corrals, traps and other ranch operational improvements. 

The ability of the appraisal team to adequately analyze the data collected was a major 

limitation of this study. That, coupled with the lack of available information conceming the 

value of services and facilities provided by lessors, greatly detract from the validity of this 

study. The analysis did not distinguish the forage value separately from other goods and 

services provided in the private leases; therefore a valuation of solely forage, which is all that 

is transferred in a federal permit, was not pomble. 

An independent appraisal team did review the report. However, this team did not 

gather any new data, thus they were constrained by the inadequate information previou:;ly 

collected. A letter verifying that the information collected an the original questionnaires was 

correct, was sent out to 868 panies. Five hundred and sixty-eight out of the eight hundred 

and sixty-eight did not respond. Ng Re§pgnse was interpreted as meaning that the original 

infonnation collected was correct. This information is highly misleading and does not follow 

established statistical sampling procedure. 

Federal grazing permit holders have a different division of fixed and variable costs 

than the private land lessees or owner operators. Final estimates of the appraised rental 

value of public land gra2ing were based on private land lease rates for a given area adjusted 

downward five percent. According to the report the adjustment reflects the impact of the 

terms and conditions associated with a federal grazing permit and privileges as compared 

to typical private land lease terms and conditions. The five percent adjustment is insufficient 

7 
111 

to account for services and facilities not included in tbe federal lease let alone off.settln .. 

favorable lease teiTlJ$ and lease conditioJJS, which change the entire situation for publi~ 

lessees compared to private. The specific costs incurred by pennittee were never obtamed. 

The grazing fee only represents 15-20 percent of the total costs to ranchers an public grazing 

permits. Non-fee costs, which were not addressed for federal land, are four to five times 

higher than tbe grazing fee (Obermiller and Lambert, 1984). 

Average tOtal cost per AUM on leased land after considering such expenses as 

turnout casts, gathering/takeoff, routine management, maintenance, salting, feeding, and 

veterina.ty services, meetings, death loss, fees and rents, and other expenses were comparable 

or higher on public leases than on private .lea.ses in Oregon and Idaho during 1982. In 

Nevada, during 1983, the average total cost per AUM for permittees came to $10.39; 

Wyoming, during 1983, bad total labor costs per AUM vary from $13.55 on Thunder Basin 

National Grassland to $14.67 on other federal and state leases. Average total costs were 

only $7.54 for grazing livestock on deeded land during this same period in Wyoming. 

Average total costs per AUM for permittees grazing livestock on North Dakota. National 

Grasslands during 1983 varied from $14.78 on McKemie Grazing Association to $10.89 on 

Medora Grazing Association. During 1983, the average total casts per AUM experienced 

by South Dakota permittees grazi:ng livestock on national grasslands varied from $9.75 on 

Grand Rivex- Cooperative Grezi.ng District to $10.38 on White River Coope,ative Grazing 

District. The average total cost per AUM for gra:zing livestock on National Forest 

allotments in South Dakota in 1983 varied from $20.94 to $17.40. Variations in the 

cost!AUM resulted from differences in the size of the permit or lease, number of animals 

in the allotment, length of grazing season, distance of the allotment from the ranch 

headquarters, distance from the last pasture on allotment in which the livestock were grazed, 

existence of mining or geological survey work in the allotment, and class of livestock on the 

allotment (Obermiller and Lambert, 1984). Non-fee costs incurred ax-e far from "erroneous". 

But these costs incurred by permittee were never obtained in the appraisal report. PRIA 

(1978), Section 6, states that "fees should be based on the economic value of the use to the 

user" (i.e. value in use), not the fair market rental value of forage; therefore, non-fee 

production costs incurred by the Jessee are critical. 

Fomrula Adjustment 

The PRIA formula was established under the correct premise; that the '"total cost of 

grazing should be equal across all graziers whether public or private m all ~ections of the 

nation". Because of the great degree of variability, a single fee will under-price some federal 

forage and over-price others, however, a fee system on a per animal unit month basis is a 

variable fee with respect to acreage per AUM and partially offsets variation. 

When the total costs of grazing federal land are considered then the PRIA formula 

is doing an adequate job of tracking the movement of private native rangeland base rates 

as a proxy far pricing federal fox-ages. The cornerstone of the previous statement is 

equalizing total costs of grazing between federal and px-ivate grazing. Permit value is a 

legitimate cost of conducting busi:neSii on federal land; when amortized and included the 

total costs of grazing are approximately equal. This situation gives no comparative 

advantage to federal permittees over the private sector livestock producers; and provides a 

8 
112 

reasonable return for fcdernl forage.. 

Improvements in the PRIA formula can be made; the base of 1.23 was established 

from an industry wide StiiVey in 1966. The period 1964 through 1968 was selected as a 

period of stability; the western livestock industry has just been through another period of 

stability from 1987 through 1992. This period might well be studied to update the historic 

$1.23 base fee. Caution must be c:rc.rc:ised and great attention to detail is necessary to 

account for all costs of private and federal grazing. Changes in federal policy have 

transferred a greater maintenance burden to federal permittees. 

A re-examination of the three separate indices of PRIA also reveals that the forage 

value index may well suffice in tracki.ug the prices of the private sector- as a proxy for 

determining the "value in use" of the federal image. Howe.vex-, greater monitoring of private 

leases is necessary for two primary reasans. FirSt, more observations are necessary to 

establish the market. Second, greater attention to the co.nditions of the lease are necessary 

to differ-entiate between the lessor provided SCIVices, the lessor provided facilities, and the 

forage quality of the lease transaction. Only the forage components of the private leases 

should be used as a basis to determine the market value of federal forage. However, the 

private lands arc the highest quality as evidenced by an acres per AUM comparison and the 

very fact that they were homesteaded. What is necessary to minimize adjustments would be 

large-scale competitive leases for federal forage. 

The proposed formulas for determining Fair Market Value (FMV) obviously delete 

the Beef Cattle Price Index (BCPI) and the Prices Paid Index (PPI) of the PRIA formula. 

These indices were included in the PRIA formula to account for a net income measure of 

the financial well-being of the range livestock industry. The index of prices paid by the 

industry (PPI) has risen from 113 in 1970 to 419 in 1991 or 271 %; this has the largest single 

factor in holding down the federal fee. Rather than dropping the index, the index should 

be corrected tO account for the specific production items involved in the cow-calf beef 

operation. The BCPI has the obvious flaw in that the price for calves under 500 pounds was 

not included; this can be easily remedied. There is justification for having only one i.ndex 

account for annual changes in economic conditions. The Forage Value Index (FYI) is 

determined from competitive lease arrangements which are consistent with criteria for an 

efficient price. 

The proposed formulas selected the critical "base value" from the 1986 Grazing Fee 

Review and Evaluation report from the Se=taries of USDA and USDL This report was 

updated to 1992. Both reportS are seriously flawed and should not be considered reliable. 

A detailed summary of the flaws are highlighted in the follov;ing sections. 

9 
113 

UTERATURE CITATIONS 

Fowler, J.M., L.A. Torell, J.M. Witte, R.D. Bowe 1985. Private Land Grazing Transactions 

in New Mexico 1983- 84. Implications for state trust land grazi.llg fees. New Mexico 

State Univ., Range Improvement Task Force, Repon 18.. 

Gray J.R., 1986. Preview of appraisal report estimating fair market rental value of grazing 

on public lands (p. 384 - 242205). 

Holechek, J.L, In Press. Fmandal aspects of cattle production in the Chib.uahuan Desert. 

J. Range Management. 

Johnston, J., 1963. Econometric Methods (2nd edition) McGraw- Hill Book Company, New 

York, N.Y. 

Kearl, W.G., 1986. Critical review and appraisal of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Grazing Fee Studies. Univ. of Wyoming Agric. Experiment Station 

Research Journal, Laramie, WY. 

Kmenta, J., 1971, Elements of Econometrics. Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc., New York, 

NY. 

Obermiller, F.W. &; O.K. Lambert, 1984. Costs incurred by permittees in grazing livestock 

on public lands in various western states. Oregon State Univ. Extension Service E.!\1 

8283. 

Rowlands, M.E. & J.W. Stuth, 1989. Factors affecting the foraging strategies of cattle on 

brush managed landscapes. Sac. Range Manage. Abstr. paper 4£:165. 

Squires, V.R., 1988. Water and its functions, regulation and comparative use by ruminant 

livestock. In: DL. Church (Ed.). The ruminant animal digestive physiology and 

nutritioll.. Prentice Hall Pub. Co., Olffs NJ. 

Stoddart, LA & AD. Smith 1943. Range Management (1st edition). McGraw- Hill Book 

Co., New York, NY. 

Tembo, A, 1990. Influence of watering points and range condition on vegetation of lhe 

Chihuahuan Desen. Ph.D. Thesis. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. 

United States Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Interior 1986 Grazing Fee 

Review and Evaluation Washington D.C., U.S. Government Printing office. 

10 
114 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. We are trying to get to the floor here. 

We are not only the committee that has perhaps the longest hearings, but has the entire floor program today. 

So we are pleased to welcome Mr. Dougherty, Western Division 

staff of the National Wildlife Federation. I am momentarily going 

to have to leave while you are speaking, Mr. Dougherty, but please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF TOM DOUGHERTY 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thomas and the 

rest of the committee. I deeply appreciate the opportuni~to come 

here today. I have been privileged to be allowed to testi both on 

this side of the fence and in the Senate as it relates to t · s issue. 

I think sometimes I walk away from here having a tall ceiling phobia and always wondering if I was able to get across the sentiment 

that I feel needs to be expressed as we debate this issue. 

The National Wildlife Federation has supported the notion of 

raising grazing fees with Mr. Synar's bill as long as four years ago, 

and I think primarily because of the notion that the increased fees 

would provide a revenue source for some much-needed improvements on public lands in the western grazing lands. I feel that 

many of the environmental conservation, sportsmen, public land 

user groups are in your, Chairman Vento, as well as Mike Synar's 

debt for at least providing a forum for discussion. 

I would be remiss if I didn't leave today by not trying to verbalize that we hear various scenarios about the condition of the range. 

Unfortunately, a lot of it is tied to grazing fees. I don't often agree 

with Mr. Thomas on many issues, but I do believe that grazing fees 

and the condition on the range are separate issues. I am not convinced that raising grazing fees suddenly improves the range conditions that many of the individuals in my organization and other 

public land user groups are so concerned with. 

There are many provisions of Chairman Vento's proposal that we 

are in support of. We do believe the issue of subleasing, i.e., pastur- ing, needs to be addressed. We are very much in support of the 

elimination of the current structure for Grazing Boards. We are 

very much in support of the redistribution methods for grazing fee 

receipts. 

But in actuality, will the combination of raised grazing fees, 

eliminating Grazing Boards, eliminating subleasing, translate to 

the type of changes that we believe need to be taken on many acres 

of public lands in the West, specifically the desert Southwest but 

certainly cases in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Colorado? The answer is probably no. We feel that Congress has done a wake-up call 

to the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, but in the end analysis it is going to be ultimately the responsibility of those Federal Land Managers to invoke the will and translate the law into meaningful change on the land. 

I am here to tell you that as recently as a month ago I just finished analyzing a resource management plan called the Green 

River Resource Management Plan, which is the master document, 

the planning document for the activities on public lands in a given district. In that document they recognized that 80 percent of the 

allotments are in fair to poor condition or in a declining trend. 
115 

They go on to recommend that various management processes be 

implemented to take a look at. They will do everything except face 

the bold reality that in some of these allotments and in some of the 

allotment management plans, that management has to be fairly 

dramatically altered, and in some cases livestock has to be removed 

from these depleted and poor riparian areas. 

I heard testimony earlier this morning that somehow represented 

that our rangelands are in the best condition ever. I don't know 

what the reference point is. I was born and raised and lived in Wyoming, and in my short lifetime I have seen improvements on some 

areas of rangeland and I have seen some severe degradation continue to occur year after year after year, primarily because the will 

of the Federal Land Managers at the district level, at the area 

level, at the ranger level, is not there to be able to effect the type 

of management that needs to be put into place. 

I feel that Mr. Synar's, Mr. Vento's discussions or proposals are 

a much-needed element to continue discussion on a much-needed 

aspect of range reform. Six years ago or five years ago, I don't 

know which, a Wyoming Game and Fish Department official spoke 

in here, and he made a bold statement that he considered excessive 

livestock grazing as the single greatest factor in the deterioration 

of the ecological condition of riparian areas in the West. 

I have since asked many land managers and wildlife officials. 

With no exception, there is agreement that excessive livestock grazing or abusive livestock grazing has a very detrimental impact on 

wildlife populations, has a significant impact on some threatened 

and endangered species. As our population increases and as people 

want to utilize the public lands more and more, we are hearing a 

demand from those individuals and those other user groups that 

reform is much needed on western public lands. 

Again, I thank this committee, and stand ready to participate in 

this process, and will try to answer any question that I may now 

or in the future. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Dougherty follows:] 
116 

Working for the Nature of Tomorrow • 

NATIONAL WfLDLIFE FEDERATION 1400 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-2266 (202) 797-6800 

STATEMENT OF 

TOM DOUGHERTY 

WESTERN DIVISION STAFF DIRECTOR 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

Before the 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

Regarding 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON 

PUBLIC LANDS 

April 20, 1993 
117 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to come before the Natural Resources Committee today to discuss the livestock grazing programs on our public lands. My name is Tom Dougherty, Western Division Staff Director of the 

National Wildlife Federation. The National Wildlife Federation is 

the nation's largest conservation/education organization with over 

5. 3 million members and supporters, and a national network of 

affiliated organizations, and we work to educate and assist 

individuals and organizations to conserve natural resources, and 

protect the Earth's environment. 

The mismanagement of livestock grazing on public lands 

administered by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) is one of the most important public lands issues· 

facing this congress and the new Administration. I want to take 

this opportunity to thank Chairman Vento for his continued 

oversight of the public lands grazing programs. Through your 

interest in this issue, the Congress and the public have developed a strong body of evidence that points to the need for dramatic 

change in the way grazing is managed on public lands. 

I appear before the Committee today in support of H.R. 1602, 

the Public Rangeland Grazing Reform Act of 1993. Chairman Vento 

has brought together in one bill many of the reforms that have been 

debated, and adopted, by the House of Representatives over the past 

several years. Included among the reforms we support are : 

o The adoption of a prohibition on livestock grazing subleasing. 

A number of forms of leasing are legal under the current BLM 

grazing program, and livestock operators on public lands are 

able to obtain a private profit from the sale of public lands 

grazing privileges. A 1992 Inspector General Report indicates 

that the federal government could have realized millions of 

dollars in revenue by receiving the true market revenues paid 

for public · lands grazing in 1990. 1 This rip-off of the 

taxpayer should be stopped. 

o The eliaination of livaatoclt grazing adviaory boarda. When 

Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 

1976, it intended to replace the single use grazing boards 

with the broad public representation on multiple usa advisory 

councils. The grazing boards are a hold-over from another 

era, and are inconsistent with today's public lands management 

philosophy. The National Wildlife Federation joined the 

Natural Resources Defense Council and other organizations to 

petition the secretary to repeal the livestcck grazing 

advisory boards. The boards are sanctioned under Secretarial 

USDI Office of Inspector General, "Audit Report Selected 

Grazing Lease Activities, Bureau of Land Management , " No. 92-I1364, September 1992 (summary attached). 
118 

2 

policy, and could be elb1inated through administrative or legislative action. 

o The adoption o~ a aodi~:l.e4 aarket value qrasinq fee foraula. 

NWF repeatedly calls upon Congress to ensure that the public 

receive a fair return for livestock grazinq activities on public lands. CUrrent public lands lease rates set by 

Executive Order in 1986 establish a lease rate of $1.86 per animal per month (Animal Unit Month or AUM) in 1993, while the 

Department of Agriculture indicates that comparable private land lease rates are over $10.00 per AUM this year. President 

Clinton recently expressed his continued commitment to reform 

of grazinq fee practices on public lands. This is the year Conqress needs to act to establish a fair and equitable return 

to the government for grazing on public lands. Both H.R. 1602 

and H.R. 643 would ensure such a return. 

o The redistribution of qrallinq fee receipts to ranqelan4 

restoration activities. Increasing livestock grazing fees on public lands must be tied to provisions to distribute fee 

receipts for resource conservation and restoration activities, 

not just livestock management. Of the grazing fee receipts returned to the federal government that the BLM was able to 

track between 1980 and 1990, over 96 percent were spent on livestock related activities, while less than 4 percent were used for riparian restoration, fish and wildlife habitat, 

watershed protection or other, similar activities. The 

available funds must be focused where the need is greatest, 

and today the need to restore and maintain the ecoloqical 

balance on our public rangelands is paramount. 

In addition to the grazing reforms identified above, H.R. 1602 

would authorize the Secretary to develop a stewardship incentive 

program fer livestock grazing on public lands. Section 2(c) of 

H.R. 1602 would authorize the secretary to discount the grazing fee 

for livestock operators that meet requirements for improving range condition and biological diversity. NWF believes the idea of a stewardship incentive program tied to the federal grazing fee has 

merit, and we look forward to working with the new Administration 

and this Committee in further consideration of a proposal that 

would result in on-the-ground improvements in range condition. 

However, NWF was dismayed at the approach to a stewardship 

incentive program under consideration by the Lujan Interior 

Department. The Lujan-Jamison plan for an Incentive-Based 

stewardship program was fatally flawed for a number of reasons: 

o the proposed criteria for participation in the fee incentive 

program are insufficient to either encourage or assure improved range and riparian conditions. 
119 

3 

o the incentive fee concept fails to articulate public land 

management objectives. 

o fair market value grazing fees will not be realized under the 

fee incentive concept proposed in the Lujan-Jamison plan. 

A critique of the Lujan-Jamison plan for a fee incentive program is 

attached to our testimony. 

The National Wildlife Federation also supports H.R. 643, which 

is pending before the Natural Resources Committee. NWF commends 

Rep. Mike Synar (D-Ol<) and Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH) for their 

efforts and determination to ensure that the public receive 

reasonable rates for grazing on public lands. The Synar-Regula bill would increase grazing fees to a modified market rate over four years, adopt critical grazing fee reforms that would 

redistribute grazing fee receipts where they are needed most, and 

abolish livestock grazing boards. This proposal has been adopted 

for the past two years by the House of Representatives as an amendment to the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

We plan to continue to work for its adoption by the Congress. 

While both H.R. 1602 and H.R. 643 include needed reform 

provisions in the public lands grazing program, neither bill 

includes measures that address the fundamental problem facing public rangelands today: the degraded condition of these lands 

from overgrazing by livestock. The evidence of livestock 

overgrazing and its impacts on public lands is clear, and much of 

the recent data on the deteriorated condition of our rangelands has 

been collected at the request of this Committee. In 1988, the 

General Accounting Office (GAO) released the first in a series of 

reports on range condition documenting the unsatisfactory 

ecological condition ot over one-half the public rangelands, or over 130 million acres. 1 GAO found that millions of acres of land were actually in declining trend, despite a decade of concerted 

management dictated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 

National Forest Management Act, and the Public Rangeland 

Improvement Act. 

The following year, NWF released with Natural Resources 

Defense council a summary of rangeland condition amassed from the 

environmental impact statements prepared on its grazing program by 

the BLM, and found similar results. According to the data 

published in OUr Ailing Public Lands: Still Ailing report, 68 

percent of the public rangelands administered by the BLM are in 

unsatisfactory condition, according to BLM data published at that 

time. 

U.S, General Accounting Office, "Rangeland Management: 

More Emphasis Needed on Declining and overstocked Grazing Allotments," GAO/RCED-88-80, June 1988. 
120 

4 

The GAO also documented specific impacts associated with 

livestock grazing practices in hot desert ecological communities in 

the desert southwest.' These ecosystems are particularly fragile, 

and when subjected to the stresses of livestock overgrazing ara slow to recover, if they can recover at all. The GAO found 

"evidence of damage occurring on BLM lands as well as evidence of 

livestock grazing's adverse impacts on several wildlife species."• 

The adverse impacts of livestock overgrazing are not limited 

to the desert Southwest. Numerous studies indicate the severe problems in riparian or streamside zones caused by overgrazing. 

When livestock congregate in these ecological communities, 

vegetation is destroyed, streambanks erode, and fish and wildlife 

species can no longer find food or shelter. These riparian 

communities are only a small portion of the public range, but are disproportionately important for fish and wildlife populations that 

inhabit the range. Both the General Accounting Office and the 

Environmental Protection Agency prepared recent reports on the 

impacts of livestock grazing on riparian habitats. 5 The 

Environmental Protection Agency found that "riparian areas throughout much of the West were in the worst condition in 

history. "6 

At the local level, the impacts of livestock overgrazing can be devastating on plants, fish and wildlife, and other public land users. A recent resource plan prepared for the Prescott National 

Forest in Arizona indicated that 99 percent of the riparian or streamside habitats were in degraded condition. Livestock 

overgrazing in the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Area of the Gila 

National Forest in New Mexico is the leading cause in the decline 

of the gila trout, a threatened species listed by the u.s. Fish and 

Wildlife service. In Comb Wash, part of southern Utah's 

u.s. General Accounting Off ice, "Rangeland Management: 

BLM' s Hot Desert Grazing Program Merits Reconsideration," GAO/RCED92-12, November 1991. 

1J2ila, at 3. 

s u.s. General Accounting Office, "Public Rangelands: some Riparian Areas Restored but Widespread Improvement Will Be Slow," 

GAO/RCED-88-105, June 1988. 

u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, "Livestock Grazing in 

Western Riparian Areas," U.S. Government Printing Office, July 

1990. 

u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, ~~ at 3. 
121 

5 

spectacular canyon country, BLM lands are overgrazed to the 

detriment of recreational opportunities on those lands. 

In short, the current grazing program fails to integrate livestock grazing with other, equally important public lands uses. In considering legislation before the Subcommittee today, congress needs to act to establish a balance between livestock grazing and 

other public land uses. 

First, Congress needs to establish (or re-establish) that the 

goals of public land management are to conserve our Nation's public 

lands for a variety of uses. The public rangelands need to be 

managed to restore and maintain a complete spectrum of indigenous plant, fish and wildlife species in healthy native range and 

riparian ecosystems. To achieve this goal, a fundamental shift in 

philosophy away from promoting commodity uses of public rangelands 

needs to occur, and that can best be achieved by Congress sending 

clear direction to the BLM and Forest Service on how public 

rangeland should be managed. 

Second, congress needs to clarify that the Bureau of Land 

Management and Forest Service have an affirmative duty to manage 

livestock grazing in such a manner that grazing is not to the 

detriment of other resource values on public lands. The federal 

agencies should prepare an ecological site evaluation of the lands 

subject to each grazing permit at the time of renewal of a grazing 

permit (at a minimum), to identify the ecological condition of the 

grazing allotment and the current carrying capacity for livestock 

grazing, taking into account other resource uses. For example, the 

BLM needs to make carrying capacity determinations for livestock 

forage that take into account the presence of wildlife species and 

wild horses and burros, among other uses, that also have forage 

needs. If BLM and Forest Service range managers are unable to 

determine the condition of the grazing land, or its ca=ying 

capacity for livestock grazing, that land should not be grazed 

until such a determination is made. 

NWF calls upon Congress to enact legislation that would 

require an ecological assessment of a livestock grazing allotment 

and a determination of the carrying capacity of an allotment prior 

to the issuance or renewal of a federal grazing permit or lease. 

Third, range managers need to assess public lands to determine 

whether these lands are suitable for livestock grazing at all, 

taking into account other public lands uses. For example, should 

the recreational values of a designated tent camping area for 

public lands users preclude livestock grazing within this area? 

Are there biological, archeological or other values established in 

lands set aside as Research Natural Areas or Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern that are significant, are adversely impacted by livestock grazing, and their presence on public lands might 

preclude livestock grazing? To the extent that either the BLM or 
122 

6 

the Forest Service attempts to address these questions now, it is 

done haphazardly. 

NWF calls on Congress to enact legislation that would provide for a systemic review of public lands currently grazed by livestock 

to assess the suitability of lands for livestock grazing. 

Fourth, adequate and consistent public participation in 

livestock grazing management decisions needs to be addressed an absolute right established in federal legislation. Congress 

enacted the Federal Land Management and Policy Act, and the 

National Forest Management Act, in part to enable the public to be 

involved in public lands. BLM has left decisions about the level 

of public involvement permissible in grazing decisions up to the 

state director. The result is inconsistent treatment of the public 

who try to participate in grazing management decisions, depending on which state an interested member of the public resides. The 

rights of the public to be involved in public lands decisions 

concerning grazing must be clearly established. 

NWF calls on Congress to enact legislation to ensure that any 

interested member of the public can become involved in livestock 

grazing decisions on public lands. We need to make sure that the 

public has a role in public lands management at all levels, 

including the grazing management program. 

In conclusion, H.R. 1602 represents a good start to addressing 

the reform measures needed to improve our public rangelands. But 

without the reforms discussed in our testimony, H.R. 1602 will not 

address the deteriorated condition of these rangelands, and will 

not put these lands on the road to recovery. we urge this 

Subcommittee to adopt the reforms needed to correct the condition 

of our rangelands. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the 

National Wildlife Federation on grazing management reforms needed on our public lands. 

Attachments 
123 

United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 

OCT I 5 1992 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: The Secretary 

FROM: Inspector General 

SUBJECT SUMMARY: Final Audit Report for Your Information - "Selected 

Grazing Lease Activities, Bureau of Land Management" 

DISCUSSION: The report concluded that the Bureau of Land Management did not 

limit the amount of grazing benefits that could be obtained by ranching operators 

because the Taylor Grazing Act, which formed the cornerstone of the Bureau's 

grazing program, did not specifically address Federal benefit limitations. 

Furthermore, Bureau policies and procedures did not preclude individuals from 

profiting through leasing arrangements involving their base property and the attached 

Bureau grazing privileges. Specifically, our review disclosed that: 

The Bureau, unlike the Forest Service, allowed large ranching operations 

to receive unlimited benefits and did not preclude foreign-owned companies from 

obtaining Federally subsidized grazing privileges. The Bureau also allowed domestic 

corporate conglomerates, such as a national oil company, a national life insurance 

company, and a major domestic brewery, to obtain grazing privileges at less than the 

Bureau's cost of providing grazing services to these entities. Had the Bureau placed 

limits on Federal benefits provided to large individual or corporate operators, it 

could have recovered potential additional revenues ranging from $1.6 !f!illion to 

$8.4 million in 1990 and less than 3 percent of the approximately 19,000 grazing 

permittees would have been affected by these limits on grazing. 

The Bureau did not preclude individuals and companies from profiting 

from the Federal grazing privileges attached to their private base property 

landholdings when entering into lease arrangements with lessees, who were then 

authorized to obtain Bureau grazing permits. The Forest Service specifically 

prohibited such base property leases arrangements, in part, to discourage land 

Prepared by: Harold Bloom 

Extension: 208-4252 
124 

speculation. Although the Interior Appropriations Act of 1985 attempted to redress 

the Bureau's practice of allowing lessors to profit from lease arrangements, the 

Bureau could not determine the extent to which lessors were profiting because the 

Bureau, in its implementing regulations, did not require the lessors or the lessees to 

disclose the financial terms of their lease arrangements. Consequently, the 

approximately 1,800 private landholders engaged in lease arrangements in 1990 

could have realized profits totaling up to $5.1 million, based on the difference 

between the average fair market rental value of the grazing privileges attached to 

their leased land and the Federal grazing fees recovered from permittees. 

Comparatively, the Bureau's unrecovered costs related to these lease arrangements 

totaled up to $2.9 million in 1990. 

To address these policy issues and to correct the problems identified in our audit, 

we made three recommendations related to establishing limits on grazing privileges 

and eliminating the opportunities for lessor profits. If implemented, these 

recommendations would allow the Bureau to recover a greater portion of its grazing 

program costs, which in 1990 exceeded program revenues by an estimated 

$30 million. In its response, the Bureau addressed the concept of grazing fees but 

did not comment on the issue of limiting benefits, which was the subject of our 

report. We therefore considered the three recommendations unresolved and have 

asked the Bureau to reconsider its position. 

Attachment 

cc: Solicitor 

Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget 

Director, Bureau of Land Management 

Director, Office of Public Affairs 
125 

Critiaue of the Incentive-Baned Grazing Fee System - A Progress Report to Congress for Public Bangeland Administered by the Bureau of Land Managemmt CBI.Ml and United States Forest 

Service. 

A grazing fee stewardship incentive program could provide a powerful tool for the Admiuistration to encourage ranchers to 

improve public rangelands. llowever, the concept developed by the 

Lujan Administration suffers from major deficiencies. It is so flawed that it should not be sent forward as a basis for 

considering changes in th~< BLM and Forest service's range 

management programs. 

Proposed Criteria for Participation in the Fee Incentive Program 

Are Insufficient to Either E11couraqe or Assure Improved Range and 

Riparian Conditions. 

Incentives should be providecl only when the public rangelands are improving in ecological condition, or have achieved the management 

objectives for the particulal· allotment subject to the program. 

In its report to congress, the BLM appears to be considering a fee 

incentive for operators who sign an agreement to improve rangeland condition, regardless of whei.her steps are taken to implement the 

agreement. Good intentions may be important on the part of the 

livestock permittee and the BLM range official when they negotiate 

and sign an agreeement to improve the range, but incentive credits 

should only be available fer implementing that agreement. we object to giving permitte,~s an incentive merely for good 

intentions. The permittee :1eeds to demonstrate that steps are being taken to implement the <.greement, resulting in changes on the 

ground to be eligible. 

In addition, the reliance on agreements as basis for an incentive 

will mean that range conserrationists will be facing a massive 

workload in writing managemer.t plans for grazing allotments, when 

their time would be better SI·ent working on the ground to improve 

range condition. BLM has sig1ed management agreements for only 10 

percent of its grazing allotments. Permittees will be exerting 

tremendous pressure on st~ff resources to write management 

agreements in order to become eligible for the fee incentive 

program. 

Incentive Fee Concept Fails ;o Articulate Public Land Management 

Objectives, 

BLM needs to articulate the management objectives that will be 

achieved in the fee incenti,·e program. The concept in the fee 

incentive program report wou:.d allow incentives to be earned for 

achieving "desired plant commt.nity," without providing any guidance 

to BLM personnel about what i1 desired in BLM's rangeland program .. BLM range staff have indicatec. that "desired plant community" could mean a monoculture grass comnunity that supports predominantly 

livestock, if that was the "desire" of the land manager. The 

69 312 0 - 93 - 5 
126 

"desired plant community" concept is a sham that allows the BLM to 

further evade any accountability in addressing difficult resource conflicts. 

The concept of a fee incentive program contains no mention of the 

riparian restoration objectives BLM adopted several years ago, or the objectives spelled out in the Fish and Wildlife 2000 and 

Recreation 2000 initiatives. Restoring public waters and meeting 

water quality standards is not identified as an objective, nor is 

the Secretary's new initiative on biological diversity. The 

Department of The Interior needs to provide meaningful guidelines 

to the range conservationists in the determination of 

qualifications for a fee incentive program. 

Fair Market Yalue Grazing Fees Will Not Be Realized under tbe BLM 

Fee Incentive concept. 

An incentive based system must be predicated on the federal 

government receiving fair market value for public rangeland forage. Currently, the u.s. Department of Agriculture indicates that the 

average private land lease rate for rangelands is around $10.00 per 

animal per month. Similarly, the Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation 

Update prepared in 1992 indicated that private land lease rates in 

the western states ranged from $6. 00 to $12.00 per animal per 

month. According to a 1986 study of subleasing activities on public lands, the average price of public rangeland forage was $7.76 per animal per month. Clearly, the market indicates that the 

public rangeland forage is worth three to five times the current 

public lease rate. The grazing fee needs to be increased to 

reflect the true value of the forage. 

Instead of adopting one of several available analyses of market 

value of forage, the BLM is "reinventing the wheel" by going out to 

western states and interviewing ranchers to obtain the rancher's 

perspective on market rates. There is no statistical validity to 

the approach to market value appraisal that BLM is taking, the 

methodology is questionable, and the results of the survey to 

determine market rates will be highly questionable. 

Input From Environmental Community Misrepresented. 

It appears that the BLM misrepresents the extent to which the 

environmental community participated in the development of the 

current fee incentive concept. The task force appointed by the BLM 

to develop a fee incentive concept was made up exclusively of 

federal agency personnel from the Bureau of Land Management and 

Forest Service. one briefing was held in Reno Nevada early in the 

seeping process, in which two representatives of the environmental 

community were present. One additional briefing was held in 

Washington o.c. for environmental organizations to explain the fee 

incentive concept, once it had been developed. There has been no broad public participation in the development of the fee incentive 

concept. The Bureau has made no effort to seek comments from the 

public through notices in the ~ Register or other means. 
127 

Mr. LARocco [presiding]. 'rhank. you, Mr. Dougherty. I want to 

thank the panel for their teE.timony and for summarizing some of 

their remarks, so the chairm m could hear those remarks while he 

was present in the committee room. 

This would be a frightening sight for Mr. Synar, to see a westerner chairing a hearing on J:lrazing fees. I have some questions for 

the panel. We will move thrl)ugh these swiftly and get to my colleagues' questions. 

For Mr. Metzger, I think vre are basically in agreement that we 

need to start from an articulation of principles and objectives. You 

mentioned Mr. Vento's bill, H.R. 1602, which starts with a series 

of five findings. Can you res pond to any of those, or do you have 

any reactions or comments al: out these findings that you would like 

to state for the record? 

Mr. METZGER. I don't have that bill right in front of me. Maybe 

someone has got a copy of it. 

Let's talk about riparian ateas very quickly. That flows over into 

all kinds of other issues. We can have riparian areas that are perfectly healthy, sustainable, biologically diverse, from a livestock 

production standpoint, yet th~y may not be adequate for a particular species that might be in t b.at riparian area. Again, it is a question of goals. 

That is a relative question. I am sure that the gentleman from 

the Wildlife Federation and l might have a different idea of what 

is a healthy riparian area, a:1d both of us be totally correct. That 

is again a question of judgment, a question of direction that confuses our industry. 

Mr. LARocco. Do you hav·~ any particular comments about the 

articulation there in the bill. about how that reads? How does it 

strike you? · 

Mr. METZGER. The questiOit of being a thriving spectrum of biologically diverse plant and animal species, the question there is, 

there are different levels of diversity depending on different goals for a riparian area. If we ar :'! going to have a riparian area that 

is specific to some very esoteric requirements for a little bird or a 

plant or something, then tha·~ would have to be defined that way. 

If we are going to have a heaJ thy riparian area for tubing and raft.. 

ing, that might be entirely different. So again this is not clear 

enough for anyone in a management position to make a decision. 

It does not direct the manage rnent of riparian areas in the western 

United States. 

Mr. LARocco. Any commen~ on the other findings there? I know 

you didn't have them in front of you when I asked the question, 

but it would be helpful to thH committee if you had any thoughts, 

knowing that you have read the bill and taken it home, taken it 

out to the ranch there. 

Mr. METZGER. Number two, "The rangeland continues to be in a 

deteriorated condition." A good part of that is a semantics problem 

that has been hopefully dealG with by at least the scientific and 

academic community, where 'Ne are beginning to talk in terms of 

several stages of development, progression. The discussions this 

morning of excellent, fair, good, and poor are really not relevant 

and they are not used on th 3 land any more in terms of assess-
128 

ment. The whole discussion this morning was really kind of out-ofdate. 

I think this also references that point. For example, with big 

game, if we wanted to have an antelope range it might be a relatively low successional or at best a mid-successional range, but if 

we wanted a truly fine elk range, we would want to have a high 

successional or high series. So again it is a question of relative values or output needs or demands that would determine where you 

are from a biological succession standpoint. 

So this is almost useless rhetoric, really, in terms of land management, biological systems, successional plant communities. It 

does not make sense. 

The third point flows right into that. How do you know that the 

BLM and the Forest Service have not achieved some of those 

things, when in actuality if we are measuring an output in antelope, for example, maybe we do want a low successional range, but 

someone else who sees that and may prefer to have elk on it, there 

should be a high successional range. I am just using a simplistic 

example here. 

But again there is a question of relativity here, there is a question of values. It is judgmental. Frankly, from the standpoint of 

how the land really works, it manages best from the ground up. 

Given the sense of output and direction, things like community stability, wildlife population stability, watershed conditions, those 

sorts of things can drive land management from the bottom up and 

it makes sense. This kind of approach, where we are saying that 

the world has gone to pot and we are going to send from the top 

down some decisions and solutions from on high, hasn't wovked 

well, that is true. 

Mr. LARocco. I might make a request at this time that the 

Cattlemen's Association and the Public Lands Council, if you want 

to submit any findings or anything that would be appropriate at 

the objectives of the bill, the committee would certainly invite you 

to do that, to help the committee. 

Mr. METZGER. We could certainly do that. 

Mr. LARocco. That would be helpful, and if you want to basically comment on the fourth or fifth, that would be helpful as well. 

Mr. METZGER. The last one, I suppose, the question of whether 

the fee is an adequate return for using the rangelands. That kind 

of got to the point I was making earlier, adequate return by whose 

standards, for what purposes? 

It is possible that the productive value of the Federal forage, 

given the conditions of lease and given the management constraints that we are under, might not be worth anything. And I 

know that is the case in particular circumstances and situations 

because there are ranches where people are actually walking away 

from them, so the value is nothing or may be less than nothing. 

Given that, how can we say that Uncle Sam has been denied a 

fair return, if in actuality the conditions of operation and the basic 

productivity of the land will not support a fee? By contrast, there 

will be other areas where the PRIA formula which is in place today might be underpricing the forage. There is everything in that whole 

spectrum on there. I think everyone is aware of that. 
129 

But the extension that comos from that is, how much of what the 

public wants from those lancls is the livestock industry's responsibility? That seems to cloud that fairness issue somehow. Are we 

responsible for all riparian considerations? Are we responsible for 

all wildlife considerations? 

You hear the Federation speaking on the other end down here, 

saying that we need to reallocate grazing fees for wildlife habitat. 

I can speak very personally to that. There are 120 stock ponds on 

my family's ranch. The Federation hasn't put a penny in them, and 

we have 1,200 or 1,300 head of elk on them, 500 head of antelope 

and 300 or 400 head of deer, :md 140-some days of organized hunt. 

So I wonder who is subsidizin.s whom here? 

That does grate on our industry, when we are putting in so much 

infrastructure and so much base for multiple use, to hear the multiple users come back and suy, "Hey, we need a little bit more." 

Again it is a question of who is providing what and for what purposes and where the equabilily lies in there that clouds this whole 

debate. It is another rock that needs to be turned over, in your words, sir. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you. 'rhat is very helpful. Thanks for your 

comments. 

Ms. Curti, I note that you eq>ress support for having the grazing fees set by statute rather than by executive order. Does this extend 

to the possibility of an incentive-based system, as well, to be set by 

statute? 

Ms. CURTI. I am not sure tl:at all the rules and regulations could 

be written through statute, b Llt I think the livestock industry has 

addressed the issue and beliE:ves that the stewardship inputs are 

important. From a practical standpoint, I would like to see the fee 

formula be put in statute ani then have the stewardship part of 

that be worked up as an ext:~a, not necessarily in the legislation. When you are talking ste·wardship throughout the West, there 

are different ways to treat th~ different types of land, and I think 

that is part of one of the proUems that we are seeing in the management techniques on the lmd. Our agencies have a rule book 

and they are using that book on the West. When you compare Nevada lands to some lands in northern Idaho, say, they are not comparable, and you do different things in order to reach your goals 

on those allotments. So I thii:k we need the flexibility to write up stewardship goals that would ·;arget specific areas. 

As far as the fee, I would think that that should be legislated 

and would be one fee overall. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you for that thought. I know out in Idaho, 

where we are trying to deal with some fore.stry issues right now, 

the thought of changing administrations, we are trying to deal with 

these issues from administraHon to administration to administration without tying anybody's hands, as well, and that comes to bear 

here on this issue, as well. 

I am going to skip to Mr. Dougherty for a second and then get back to Dr. Fowler. Mr. Dougherty, thank you for your testimony. 

Will the National Wildlife Federation be participating in Secretary Babbitt's series of town meetir.1gs, do you know? 

Mr. DouGHERTY. Most definitely. The one in Bozeman, Albuquerque, Grand Junction, and Rella. I know that members of our orga-
130 

nization, as well as members of the environmental conservation 

sportsmen's community planned on attending those hearings to express some of the concerns that have been raised here today, but 

it isn't, you lmow, a one side is right and one side is wrong type 

of issue. That is why we so welcome the debate that is occurring here today. 

But it is not inconsistent for the public, people from Vermont, 

Rhode Island, New Jersey, to want to also participate in this discussion. These lands that we are talking about are public lands, 

and except in very radical quarters do I hear any of them saying 

that that means the cows have to go off the land. But what they 

are wanting, and some of the values that they recognize that are 

important to them and their families are the wildlife, the open 

space, the land in good ecological condition. 

They want to participate in this process. I would have liked to 

have seen a hearing occur in the East for the people that are affected or that want to participate in this process. 

Mr. LARocco. You mean eastern Montana? [Laughter.] 

Or St. Paul, for example? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. But we do definitely plan on participating in 

those discussions. 

Mr. LARocco. Mr. Metzger said that if the Vento bill was passed 

it would put him out of business. How do you respond to that? Do 

you dispute his numbers or his calculations? How does the Wildlife 

Federation feel about that heartfelt thought? 

Mr. DOUGHERTY. It is really difficult on an individual case for me 

to dispute an individual's livelihood or their participation in the 

process. I think the evidence is to the contrary, with the exception 

of very few marginal operations. In fact many cattlemen that I 

have visited with were almost embarrassed by the lowering of the 

grazing fee this year, under the PRIA formula, and they feel that 

a responsible or a modest fee increase is not going to affect their 

operation. 

Now were this to climb to in excess of fair market value, or if 

it was to climb in excess of what we are hearing some of the grazing fee receipts on some private land, I think it would have an adverse impact on some operations. I don't suspect that this esteemed 

body will ever allow that to happen, nor should they. 

But I do believe that one of the focuses that we have got to get 

away from is trying to pick that magic formula. I believe that there 

is merit in some incentive-based type formula. I disagree with the 

Lujan proposal. I think it is shortsighted. I think there needs to be 

more discussion on how that could occur. But I have seen Congressman Synar make the offer to a lot of people, and I have yet 

to see evidence that there is going to be a massive folding up of 

the tents in the western public land grazing allotm~nts. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you for responding to that. 

For Dr. Fowler, the committee thought it was important to get 

a few things for the record here, if I can. On page 8 of your statement you say, "Permit value is a legitimate cost of conducting business on Federal land; when amortized, and included, the total costs 

of grazing are approximately equal." I have some questions about 

that part of your testimony. 
131 

I assume that the reference to "equal costs" refers to a comparison between cost of grazing wtder a Federal permit and the use of 

nonfederallands. Is that corre~~t? 

Dr. FOWLER. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. LARocco. And by "permit value" I assume that you mean 

the value for a ranching business that comes from having a permit 

to graze on public rangelands. Is that correct? 

Dr. FOWLER. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. LARocco. But isn't it true that a grazing permit is not a 

property right, but merely a license to utilize a certain amount of 

public forage on certain parts :>f the public rangelands? That is sort 

of an open-ended question for you. 

Dr. FoWLER. That is an en::ompassing statement. It is the way 

the West was formulated and founded, was through adjudication of 

grazing and adjudication of rights to those individuals who had established and developed and £>rmulated business units, so the very 

right came from a recognitio t1 of those who had invested in the 

Federal lands historically. Through time those rights have been transferred in the market. 

There is an established market. It is a recognized market by the 

Internal Revenue Service, in which 80- to 90-percent of the current 

ranch families have at one time or another paid for the permit. It 

is an actual cost of their doing business. 

So when I refer to it as being a legitimate cost, I am referring 

to it, Mr. Congressman, as being a legitimate recognized business 

cost. And that is really the dispute we are talking about. Is it recognized? Is it equitable? If there is an increase in grazing fee, that 

will reduce that long-term eqllity base. It is an equity question; it 

is not an efficiency question. The individuals have paid it. There 

is a market for it and they have invested in it. It is recognizable. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you. Also on page 8 of your statement you 

quote from the 1978 PRIA Ad, that said fees "should be based on 

the economic value of the use to the user," and not the fair market 

value of the for . Isn't it tn.e that PRIA expired in 1985? 

Dr. FOWLER. , sir, and ·;he executive order continued its recognition of reasonableness. I 1;hink that is what we are really talking about. The value of that forage in use, as stated earlier, is a 

derived demand for the forage. 

Mr. LARocco. And they extended the fee? 

Dr. FOWLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LARocco. The formula for the fee? 

Dr. FOWLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LARocco. Isn't it true that FLPMA says the taxpayer should 

receive the fair market valu~ of the forage sold through grazing permits? 

Dr. FOWLER. The resource should be adequately priced as aresource, yes, sir, and derived demand. 

Mr. LARocco. That is in agreement with FLPMA? 

Dr. FOWLER. Those things t:re not mutually exclusive terms. 

Mr. LARocco. So is it your testimony that the purpose of the 

current formula and the reason you support its retention is to 

maintain permit values, meaning the value of the ranching businesses, of grazing permittees! 
132 

Dr. FOWLER. No, sir. The formula is to equate total cost of graz- ing between Federal lands and private lands. That is exactly what 

the formula is designed to do, to include both the permit costs, the 

fee costs, on both Federal and private land. 

So the formula, the $1.23, was derived from the terms of equity, 

and recognizing that the costs of grazing on Federal lands are higher than similar costs on private lands, and that the lease values 

on Federal land were higher. They are offsetting. The $1.23 made 

everything equal. No one was subsidized, and the general public received a fair market return for their Federal forage. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you very much. My time has long expired. 

Mr. Thomas, my colleague from Wyoming. 

Mr. THoMAS. Thank you. 

Jack, you made the point that it is hard to really determine 

where we are going. I couldn't have agreed with that more. There 

are some, I think, who do sincerely want all commodity uses off the 

land. That is rather an extreme one. There are others who want 

to make it just a straight comP-arison between rental property and 

these leases. Others move in different directions. 

So it seems to me one of the problems is understanding the difference in the value. How do you differentiate between the actual 

value of a Federal lease as opposed to private leases? How would 

you define that? 

Mr. METZGER. One method would be conceptually to pursue what 

PRIA was supposed to do. Whether it is or not is part of the question here. But given the fact that Uncle Sam has only one thing 

to sell, which is forl!ge, if we truly def'me the differential in opportunity between the Federal land sector and the private land sector, 

whatever that number is would actually be the forage value because that is the only commodity that actually changes hands in 

that transaction. That is one way to look at it. 

Another way to determine what that might be in a market setting would be some kind of a bid approach, but that is impossible 

to work given the land patterns that exist out there, the differential fee on the water on the Federal lands, and others don't. That 

is just a complete mess. That would be another way to determine 

it. All things have to be considered in the two different business 

scenarios. 

Mr. THoMAS. One of the political problems is there is not much 

of a recognition. Tom, you talked about these lands are owned by 

everybody, and that is certainly true, but most people in Rhode Island, they don't see federal lands as it exists between Casper and 

Shoshoni. They sort of see it as Grand Teton National Park, and 

it ain't that. So somehow we have to get that done. 

Tom, nice to see you. I didn't realize you were going to be here. 

We talked about wildlife. The increases have been fairly significant since 1960. Elk have increased 900-and-some plus percent on 

Federal land. The same is true with moose, though not quite as 

much, deer and elk. There is a substantial increase. How does that 

fit into the challenges that you see of livestock being a threat to 

wildlife? 

Mr. DouGHERTY. Well, the species you are talking about, the 

high profile ungulate species, there is little disagreement that your 

Wyoming State Game and Fish and the Idaho Game and Fish De-
partment have done an excellent job of stewarding and managing 

big game populations, and probably maximizing to the extent possible those types of populations. 

There certainly is documentation in those same agencies about 

the adverse impact that sheep gr :tzing, cattle grazing, have had on 

bighorn sheep populations. There is certainly a great deal of information that the range capacity fclr wildlife, big game, small game, 

nongame species, is affected by l:.vestock grazing. In Wyoming, for 

instance, which has a fine Stat~ stewardship program, they set 

herd unit objectives for pronghon antelope, for elk, for mule deer, 

based on available forage, based on competition in grazing with or 

browsing with livestock. To think for one minute that that number 

could not be higher if desired, i; impacted on a tolerance factor, 

much of which has been pointed mt several times here today, that 

a lot of these big game species winter on Mr. Metzger's property 

as well as a lot of other private land properties in virtually all of 

the western states. 

I think when we speak of wildlife we have also got to think of 

the Hila trout; we have also got to think of the desert tortoise; we 

also have to think of those speci~s that are riparian-dependent or 

are dependent on a vegetative community in a riparian area, that 

are taken down to the ground bf livestock or that are having an 

impact on those species. 

Now, again, except for a very minute element of people, I don't 

think there is a person involved in this debate that is saying one 

of them should be replaced with the other. We do believe that you 

can have compatible livestock g~azing. I will even admit in this 

panel that there are circumstanc:es in which livestock grazing increases the health and welfare of some vegetative communities in 

some allotments. 

There are other allotments, ani specifically in Arizona and New 

Mexico and Utah, where there is llO chance for that vegetative community to ever recover. Those species that are dependent on that 

quality habitat are given the short shrift on this, and they are not 

able to respond, and many of them are in trouble. . Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate that. I appreciate also your recognition 

of the part that private ownership and private lands and private 

winter feed play in livestock. It is certainly significant in the northem part of the country, at least, where you have to feed things in 

the winter. 

Dr. Fowler, do I understand that basically you would leave in 

place a formula similar to the one that is there now, and update 

the base of it based on value? Wo11ld that be your recommendation? 

Dr. FOWLER. Representative Thomas, I think we have a unique 

opportunity to reexamine the bas1l of the PRIA formula. 

Mr. THOMAS. By "base" you me:m the $1.23? 

Dr. FOWLER. The equating factor that was set in 1966, that was 

set between the period 1964 thrcugh 1968, during a period of stability in the livestock industry. We have had a period of stability 

in the livestock industry from 1987 through 1992. By examining 

the total cost of grazing on priva Ge land and the total cost of grazing on Federal land, we can reexltmine the costs that would equate 

all of the costs so there would be no subsidy. There would be 

equalization. 

69-312 0 - 93 - 6 
134 

Mr. THOMAS. Have you played with the numbers? Do you have 

an idea? 

Dr. FOWLER. No, sir. That is one of the charges of the Bureau 

of Land Management/Forest Service. I mean, that is what they are 

supposed to do, is look at that base. 

Mr. THOMAS. You know, I don't know that ranchers are any more 

profitable than they were in the 1960s. Do you, generally, over 

time? I guess what I am saying then is, rate of return, does that 

play a part? 

Dr. FOWLER. Representative Thomas, 1.5-2 percent rate of return is what we have experienced in this industry for a long, long 

period of time. There have been aberrations. In seventy-nine it was 

good. Ninety-one was a good year. That kind of rate of return does 

not attract capital. It does not attract young people in the industry, 

and that is part of our problem. 

Mr. THoMAS. It goes back to Jack's initial comment. No one has 

really demonstrated what the fee should be, that this one is absolutely wrong. If you go on rate of return, I don't know that ranchers have a greater profit margin now than they did 30 years ago, 

on the contrary, even though they are handling a lot more money. 

Is that a reasonable assertion? 

Dr. FOWLER. That is a reasonable statement. I think they are living off depreciation, and they have been for a Ion~ time. 

Mr. THoMAS. Ms. Curti, how is the range condition in your judgment in Nevada generally? Ms. CURTI. This year it is great because we finally, I think, have 

broken the back of the drought, at least for this one year. I had 

an opportunity to tour central Nevada and northeastern Nevada. 

The ranges look excellent in those places where we have controlled 

management, where the cattle, wildlife and all that are in good 

percentages. 

Recently, though, I was on an allotment in northern Washoe 

County, which is just north of Reno. I got a call from a rancher up 

there who runs a thousand head of cows on a 12-month period, both BLM and Forest Service. He was asked last year because of 

the drought to come off early in September, and he did. He has 

been feeding his cattle all winter. 

He thought he could go back on on March 1, and determihed that 

the forage wasn't ready. We went out and took a look, went out in 

a helicopter, and we found a thousand head of wild horses on that 

allotment who have devastated that allotment. This man is being 

asked now to cut numbers and times out as if it is his fault that 

we have wild horses on an allotment that BLM can't manage. And 

I am not blaming BLM because they try. The problem is, every 

time they go out there somebody files an appeal and stops a gather, 

and this is getting out of hand in Nevada. 

In more and more instances I am getting calls for help. My numbers are being cut beyond what I can survive with, and I am willing to work with anybody. Come on and help us resolve this situation. We have got to move these wild horses. In eastern Nevada we 

have got too many elk. I know that is a problem in Utah, although 

it is not as big an issue right now as the wild horses are in Nevada. 

So when we look at management and stewardship, we have to 

look at it from the whole of what is happening on the land, not just 
1:35 

from the rancher's perspective. "Okay, it's your fault, and it's cattle 

that are doing it, and we are going to move you." I think we have 

got to, all of us, broaden our terminology or our mind set as far 

as stewardship goes, and recognize what all the impacts out there 

are on the land, whether it be public or whether it be wild horses 

or wildlife. I think we need to work these things out. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you. There is a herd of elk in eastern Utah 

that comes over and eats our grass in the summer in Wyoming, 

and then runs back across the line before the hunting season 

starts. We have got to do something about that. [Laughter.] 

Thank you. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you. The gentleman from Oregon, Mx:. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Ch1urman. 

Dr. Fowler, I want to discuss with you for a couple of minutes 

this proposed idea about a grazing fee set at a high price and then, 

determining on the investment that I make on the public lands, my 

fee may go down. I am wondering. if you have thought about that, 

and if you have, I am wondering how you think that might be enforced? 

Dr. FOWLER. I have had the occasion to think briefly on this, 

Representative Smith. 

Firstly, accounting for investment is not incurred in one period. 

It is a long-time, hist01ic investment process, so simply picking up 

the investment pattern in one YElar will not adequately reflect the 

long-term investment of the permittee through time. 

So I believe you have to go back. I mean, there is no sense starting the clock in 1993 and saying, "From now on we start an investment." I believe that is an erroneous way of doing business. 

Mr. SMITH. If my allotment w1~re in the good to excellent condition, as 36 million acres are in this country, and I had been a part 

of that investment process that created that category, if indeed we 

started in 1993, would I be terribly penalized? Is that your point? Dr. FOWLER. I think they would reexamine how they measured 

"excellent," but in reality I think the persons who would be penal- ized would be those moving from poor to fair to good through this 

incentive plan. The carrots that are waved in this incentive plan 

are, number one, you will sign an AMP, an allotment management 

plan. That has certain positive values to the agency, not necessarily to the permittee. 

If the permittee is involved di:rectly with the formulation of the 

allotment management plan and involved in changing the flexibility, he will be a signer. He will participate in the first incentive 

plan. The movements through time, I mean, they are talking about 

changing the ecologic measureme:nt to a desired future condition or 

a desired plant community. That has to be determined. The goal 

has to be determined. 

The permittee will be one of a multitudinous set to determine 

that future condition. It might not be in his best interest, what has 

been determined for his particula.r allotment that he has been associated with. 

Mr. SMITH. Beyond that, if I built a water hole and you built a 

fence on your permitted land, wouldn't there have to be somebody 

to come out and verify how big my water hole was? Did I build a 
136 

three-wire fence or a four-wire fence? How many miles of fence did 

I build? 

Dr. FOWLER. Theoretically, on these permits, when you apply for 

the permit that value of the improvement is supposed to have been 

registered with the Forest Service or with the Bureau of Land 

Management. Now the BLM, they have a special category, section 

4, where you can retain that improvement in private ownership. 

There is no such similar situation in the Forest Service lands. 

Mr. SMITH. But if I were in an investment formula, I would likely 

have to have somebody from the BLM come to my place and look 

at my fence or my water hole. And let's see, there are 21,000 permittees. 

Dr. FOWLER. There are a lot more permittees than that. 

Mr. SMITH. Wouldn't that be a huge oversight responsibility? 

Dr. FOWLER. They will have a tremendous job doing that. They 

will also have to value them. They will also have to place an expected life on each type of improvement. This is no simple matter, 

to attempt to do that, to attempt to give credit for investments. 

These improvements obviously are of different quality, different 

placement and location. A fence in New Mexico on flat land is not 

the fence on forest land. You go up on the mountainside, there is 

a tremendous different cost. 

In addition, how do you value the permittees' labor involved with 

these improvements and replacements? Typically that is how they 

are done, on a cost-shared basis. The agency will provide the materials; the rancher will provide the labor. What is he worth? Do you 

value him at $4 an hour, $5 an hour? There are managerial costs, 

there are all types of things that will be incorporated in this improvement valuation process. 

Mr. SMITH. Jack, do you have a response to this discussion we 

are in? 

Mr. METZGER. I am agreeing with Dr. Fowler on this, right 

through. I guess the question that is most important to me in 

terms of this incentive thing is the constantly moving goal line in 

terms of what we are managing for on Federal lands. Today's improvement might be in the way tomorrow, as we see it. Today we 

might be managing for riparian, and tomorrow it could be big 

game, and the next day it could be dirt bikes or whatever. We just 

keep changing what we are managing for. So how do you put in 

a constructive system of improvements that would meet anything 

long-term? We just have a short-term perspective. 

One of the things that is important to note is that we don't have 

any base information, particularly on the National Forest System. 

I was surprised this morning when there was discussion of that 17-

cent figure that appeared in the 1992 update as Forest Services 

permittees' contributions. The National Forest System has no way 

that they, by any standard method, track permittee investment in 

Federal permits. There is nothing of record. There is no standard 

system. It is not tracked anywhere. So where that 17 cents came 

from, your guess is as good as mine, so it is a good place to start. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you. 
137 

In following up on that, I would note there are many of these 

changes and improvements to the land and the surrounding areas 

that are capital investments, and some are managerial as well, just in terms of when you bring the cattle on and when you take them 

off and the numbers and so forth that can meet certain objectives, 

as well. 

I want to thank the panel for their excellent testimony and for 

responding to the questions of the committee. With that, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 2:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

APPENDIX 

APRIL 20, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

SOXMARIIB AND BACKGROUND, &,a, i43 AND a.a. 1601 

GRA:U!IG l'lllll8 AND IIAIIGILMID IUJIAOIIJUUI'l' 

I. JILL BUMNAaiii 

a.a. •u 

H.B, 643, introduced by Representatives synar and Requla, is 

identical to their proposal adopted by the House as an amendment to a BLM reauthorization bill in 1991, It would do the following: 

1. Replace the current grazing fee formula for western public lands and National Forests (but not National 

Grasslands) by a "Modified Market" formula identified 

in 1986 joint report by Interior and Agriculture Departments. The formula would be applied on a westwide basis tied to the lowest appraised value of 

forage and indexed to 1993, According to Administration calculations, under this formula, the 

1992 tee would have been about $5.30 per AUM (instead of $1.92/AUM tee charged in 1992). However, the bill 

provides that feeo could not increase or decrease by more than 33.3\ annually, so the actual 1992 fee under 

the bill would have been $2.62 per AUM. 

2. Abolish grazing advisory boards and shift their 

functions to Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) multiple-use advisory councils. 

3. Require that the Federal share of grazing-fee receipts be used (subject to appropriation) only for restoration 

and enhanceaent of fish and wildlife habitat, 

restoration and improved management ot riparian areas, 

and enforcement of land-management and allotmentmanagement plans and grazing regulations. 

u.a. uoa 

H,ft. l§Q2, introduced by Representatives Vento and Darden, has 

the short title of "Public Rangeland Grazing Reform Act of 1993." 

It includes the following provisions: 

1. Generally, grazing fees would be set at "fair market 

value•, defined by the same •modified market" formula as specified in H.R. 643, 

2. Full fdr-market-value fees would apply to National 

Grasslands as well as western National Forests and western rangelands managed by BLM, and would take 

effect in 1994 (~ be phased in as per H.R, 643 and 

1991 House bill), ~xcept thQt-- ~ 

'3. Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture could 

establish a program of discounted fees in return for 

grazers' meeting requirement• set by relevant Secretary to improve range and ripari~n ecosystems. ~ 

(139) 
140 

2 

4. Grazing fees would be waived for a State natural resources or wildlife agency (or other permittee in a 

cooperative agreement with such an agency) placing 

permitted forage on non-use for conservation or wildlife enhancement for at least 2 years; permittee 

would also retain preference for permit renewal. 

5. The Federal share of receipts would be used (subject to 

appropriation) for restoration and improvement of fish 

and wildlife habitat, restoration and improved 

management of riparian areas, implementation and 

enforcement of land-use plans, and management of 

grazing. FLPMA multiple-use advisory councils would 

advise on distribution of funds. (Same as House 1991 

BLM Reauthorization bill and 1992 appropriation bill) 

6. Share of receipts returned to States would go to local 

government units (counties), not to grazing advisory 

boards, to be used for governmental purposes. Shared 

receipts could not be used to lobby Congress or for 

administrative or judicial cases related to management 

of grazing. 

7. Grazing permit terms would be 5 years (instead of 10) 

a. Subleasing prohibition would be strengthened by closing 

existing loopholes (the same provisions as in BLM 

Reauthorization bill passed by the House in 1991) 

9. Gra·ing advisory boards would be abolished, and their 

fur.· t.ions transferred to FLPMA multiple-use advisory 

councils. 

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

Grazing :Pees 

Twice in 1991 and again in 1992, the House of Representatives 

voted to change the current formula for setting grazing fees for 

western rangelands managed by the BLM and the Forest Service. 

That formula was first established in 1978 by the Public 

Rangelands Improvement Act ("PRIA"), which required its use on a trial basis through 1985 and directed preparation by the Interior 

and Agriculture Departments of a joint report on gra~ing fees, 

anticipating new legislation to set fees for 1986 and after. The 

report was submitted, but negotiations toward new legislation 

broke down, and on February 14, 1986, President Reagan issued an Executive order mandating continued use of the PRIA formula. 

In 1991, both the Synar-Darden-Atkins amendment to the FY 1992 

appropriations bill and the Regula amendment to the BLM 

Reauthorization bill provided for replacing the current formula 

with an alternative identified in the 1986 joint Interior and 
141 

3 

Agriculture report. Both amendments also provided for 

termination of the existing grazing advisory boards (composed solely of grazing permittees) and transfer of their functions to 

the broader-based Multiple-Use Advisory Councils provided for by 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Both 

amendments also provided for broadening uses of the Federal share 

of grazing fee receipts, to emphasize restoration and enhancement 

of fish and wildlife habitat, restoration and better management of riparian areas, and for more intensive rangeland management by 

BLM and the Forest Service. 

All these provisions are included in both H.R. 643 and H.R. 1602. 

However, while the FY 1992 appropriations bill amendment would 

have fully implemented the formula in 1992, the BLM 

reauthorization bill as passed by the House provided for a more gradual increase, by providing that fees could increase or decrease no more than 33.3\ annually. This provision is in H.R. 

643 but not in H.R. 1602. 

(Thus, if H.R. 643 had been in effect, the 1992 fee would have 

been $2.62 per AUM, compared with an actual 1992 fee of $1.92 per 

AUM. In 1991 it was $1.97 per AUM, and in 1993 is $1.86 per AUM). 

The Senate omitted grazing-fee provisions from its version of the 

fiscal 1992 appropriations bill, and House-Senate conferees 

dropped grazing fee provisions from the final bill. Instead, the 

conferees directed the Interior and Agriculture Departments to 

contract for a review and update of the information contained in 

their 1986 joint report and to report the results to House and 

Senate authorizing and appropriations committees. 

In 1992, the House adopted a Synar grazing-fee amendment to the 

FY 1993 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. That 

amendment provided for minimum fees: $4.35/AUM for 1992: 

$5.80/AUM for 1993; $7.25/AUM for 1994; and $8.70/AUM "or fair 

market value, whichever is higher" for 1995. "Fair market value" was defined as the result of application of the same formula as in the 1991 appropriation bill and the BLM reauthorization bill. 

Updated Grazing Pee Report 

Based on contracted work of real estate appraisers and 

consultants from Salem, oregon, and Greeley, Colorado, the 

Interior and Agriculture Departments produced a report, dated 

April 30, 1992 and entitled "Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation, 

Update of the 1986 Final Report." 

The report updated the 1986 data but did not try to revise the 

methodology used in producing the original 1986 joint report. 

Reflecting the views of the Bush Administration (and especially 

the Interior Department), a cover letter noted the update "should 

be used with caution", noting that the 1986 report's methodology 

"was the subject of controversy ..• and is likely to be so in this 
142 

version". A "Highlights" section identified •key issues" raised 

by industry, conservation, and other groups. 

The contractors interviewed 260 grazing permittees in Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, 

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, 

Utah, Washington, and Wyomingt reviewed 56 Government agency 

grazing leases with fees set by competitive bidding (not the 

formula applicable to BLM and Forest Service lands); and 

interviewed over 100 State and Federal officials, plus active 

investors and professional appraisers. 

The update reflects economic conditions between 1983 and January, 

1992. It finds "no discernable linkage" between farmland prices 

and grazing rental rates, but "an industry-professed linkage 

between beef cattle prices and the rates paid for leased 

grazing." It notes that from 1983 to 1990, the number of beef 

cattle in the 16 Western States covered by the Executive Order 

fee formula dropped about 12.4t, but cattle prices rose 74t. 

A digest of other parts of the updated report follows: 

Market Values of Federal Forage 

a) By pricing Area (see attached mapl 

The update concludes that the 1986 report's adjustments (for 

differences in terms and conditions) are still valid to compare 

grazing charges for private land with the fees for public 

rangeland grazing. After such adjustments (subtractions from 

private-land grazing rates), the update reports the January 1, 

1992 "Appraised Market Value of Grazing on Public Rangelands" in 

6 pricing regions (see map) as follows : 

PRICE AREA APPRAISED MARKET VALUE (per head or pair month) 

Mature Cattle and Horses 

1 $10.26 

2 * $6.39 

3 $7.74 

4 $6.39 

5 * $4.68 

6 $6.85 

Yearling cattle (under 18 mos. of age) 

1 $7.74 

2 * $5.76 

3 $6.03 

4 $5.85 

5 * $4.68 

6 $4.77 

Sheep * 

westwide $0.95 

* NOTE: data for areas 2 and 5 unchanged from 1983;lack of data 

prevented updating 19BJ appraised market value for grazing sheep. 
143 

5 

b) Westwide 

The 1986 report also estimated a westwide rate ot $7.00 per AUM 

for grazing on private lands in 1983. As of January 1, 1992, 

according to the update, the corresponding rate was $8.00 per 

AUM, so that, after making the requisite adjustaents to reflect 

the differences in terms and conditions, "the indicated market 

value for grazing on public rangelands was $6.84" per AYM, as compared with $1.92 per AUM under the current formula. 

c) Compared with Fees Actually Charged 

From 1988 to 1992, the update states, the actual grazing fees 

charged "averaged 27 percent of the indicated market value, with a range from 24 percent in 1988 to 29 percent in 1990", with the 

difference between the actual fees and the indicated market value 

ranging from $4.70 per AUM to $5.05 per AUM; from 1986 to 1992. 

actual fees averaged $4.89 per AUM below indicated market value. 

Alternatives to Current Formula 

As did the 1986 report, the update discussed several alternatives 

to the current grazing fee formula: 

Updated PRIA Formula 

"Updated PRIA": The 1986 report identified weaknesses in the fee 

formula established by the PUblic Rangelands Improvement Act 

(PRIA) in 1978. (Fees are now set by Executive Order using the same formula, except that the minimum fee is $1.35 per AUM; PRIA 

set no minimum fee). Some of these weaknesses were also discussed 

by GAO in its June, 1991 report entitled "CUrrent Formula Keeps 

Grazing Fees Low". The update discusses an "updated PRIA" formula 

with remedies for these weaknesses: updating the base value from 

$1.23 to $2.95 (to shift from 1966 to 1990 data); similarly 

updating the forage value and beef price indices; expanding the 

prices paid index to include ranchers' costs now excluded; and 

using the ratio (instead of the difference) between beef prices 

and costs (to dampen variability). The resultant 1991 fee: 

$2.90/AYM 

Modified PRIA 

"Modified PRIA": This would make technical changes as per the 

preceding, but set fees either westwide by using a base value of 

$4.68, reflecting grazing's lowest market value (i.e, for area 5) or by pricing area (see map), with the appraised market value as the base for each area. Using a $4.68 base, a westwide 1991 fee 

would have been $4.63 per AUM under this formula; if done by 

pricing area, the 1991 fees would have been: 
Area 1 

Area 2 

Area J 

Area 4 

Area 5 

Area 6 

144 

6 

$ 10.15 per AUM 

$ 6.33 per AUM 

$ 7.66 per AUM 

$ 6.33 per AUM 

$ 5.10 per AUM 

$ 6.78 per AUM 

Combined Value 

"Combined Value" System: This would make the technical changes in 

PRIA, then average the updated base ($2.93) with the indicated 

westwide market value ($6.84) to produce a base value of $4.88. 

Tbe resultant 1991 fee: $4.85 per AUM. 

Modified Market 

"Modified Market Value" System: The 1991 and 1992 House 

amendments were based on this formula, and it is used in both 

H.R. 643 and H.R. 1602, on a westwide basis. 

The modified market formula can be used either westwide or by 

pricing area (see mapl and animal class. It simply adjusts the 

market value by the forage value index. 

H.R. 643 and H.R. 1602 both would apply the formula westwide, and 

tbe resultant westwide 1991 fee would have been $4,54 per AUM. 

If applied by pricing areas (see map! and animal classes, the 

1991 fees under the modified market formula would have been; 

Mature Cattle 

Area 1 $ 9.95 per AUM 

Area 2 $ 6.20 per AUM 

Area 3 $ 7.51 per AUM 

Area 4 $ 6.20 per AUM 

Area 5 $ 4.54 per AUM 

Area 6 $ 6.64 per AUM 

Yearling cattle 

Area 1 $ 7.51 per AUM 

Area 2 $ 5.59 per AUM 

Area 3 $ 5.85 per AUM 

Area 4 $ 5.67 per AUM 

Area 5 $ 4.54 per AUM 

Area 6 $ 4.63 per AUM 
145 

7 

Grazing Fees for State and Other Federal Lands 

The update has data about 1991 fees for grazing on State lands 

(The 1991 BLM and Forest Service fee was $1.92/AUM) Excerpts: 

STATE LAND GRAZING RATES 

State 

Arizona 

California 

Colorado 

Idaho 

Montana 

Nebraska 

New Mexico 

North Dakota 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

South Dakota 

Utah 

Washington 

Wyoming 

a) On Permittees 

1991 Fee CS / AUMl 

$ 1.48 (per modified PRIA formula) 

$ 1.92 (per PRIA formula) 

$ 4.70 

$ 4.91 

$ 4.24 

$ 3.85 to 11.20 

$ 3.46 

$ 8.50 (per rate per acre) 

$ 5.00 to $10.83 

$ 2.50 to $11.50 

$ 7.08 

$ 2.32 (per modified PRIA formula) 

$ 4.36 to 5.71 

$ 2 . 50 

Effects of Fee Changes 

Effects of higher grazing fees on livestock businesses would 

depend on the extent of dependency on public rangelands, herd 

size, and beef prices. Arizona producers are most dependent on public rangelands--60% of forage for an average Arizona cattle 

operation is from public range; other dependency levels: New 

Mexico, 44%; Nevada 36%; Utah 35\; Colorado, 25%; Idaho, Oregon , and Wyoming, 23\ (the median); California, 15\; Nebraska and 

Washington, 13\; South Dakota, 12%; Montana, 11\. 

The update says in 1990 there were about 240,000 livestock 

producer s in the 16 Western States covered by the current 

grazing-fee formula, of which 23,600 (10%) were Federal grazing 

permittees. Grazing fees were about 3% of permittees' cash 

costs. Permittees had 14% lower cash costs than the Western 

industry average, but also had 11% lower cash receipts and 47\ 

higher capital replacement costs--with the result that while 

their receipts less cash costs were 6\ above the industry 

average, addition of replacement costs meant residual rece i pts 

dropped to 17t below the industry average. 

The update compared 1990 per-cow and per-ewe returns above shortterm cash costs for an average cattle operation in 13 Western 

State s a nd a n average sheep operation in 9 St a tes (no data fo r Arizona, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Washington) at 6 differ e nt 

fee levels (free grazing; actual 1990; "Updated PRIA"; "Combined 

Value " ; "Modified Market Value"; a nd private-land lease r a t es). 

Fo r 1990, the results s howed a pos i t i ve r etur n above short-term 
146 

8 

cash costs in eyery case: •In the short-term. the average 

pr9ducer would be able to cover pr9duction costs while 

maintaining the current herd levels." 

The update also compared the effects of different fee levels on cattle 

above variable 

enterprises cash with 

costs 

different 

of permittees, 

herd sizes 

with 

in 

the 

terms 

following 

of ~ 

result for 1990: 

small herd medium herd large herd 

(l-99 head) (100-500 head) (500+ head) 

Fee per AUM ------return in dollars per cow------------ 1. $1.81 $148 $150 $189 

2. $2.93 $133 $144 $184 

3. $4.68 $124 $136 $177 

4. $4.88 $123 $135 $176 

5. $9.19 $101 $114 $158 

1.=1990 actual fee; 2.="updated PRIA"; 3.="modified market"; 

4.="combined market value"; 5.=1990 private land lease rate, per 

USDA. 

(The update indicates that of BUI permittees, 45\ have "small" 

herds, 45% have "medium" herds, and 10% have "large" herds, while 

of Forest Service permittees, 35% have "small" herds, 46% have 

"medium" herds, and 19% have "large" herds") 

But there is a different result from projecting the results of 

the same 6 fee levels on returns aboye all costs. Then, while 

the result is positive returns for the average cattle operation 

at 

for 

most 

South 

fee 

Dakota 

levels 

{where 

(ranging 

returns 

from 

above 

free 

all 

to $9.19 

costs 

per 

are AUM) negative ~ at ~fee levels), for Arizona. Idaho. Nevada, Utah. and Washington 

negative returns result from private-land lease rates. Average 

sheep operations show negative returns at various fee levels in 

California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. 

still, the update notes that "Livestock enterprise returns are more sensitive to changes in livestock prices than they are to 

changes in grazing fees ••• a 2 cents per pound increase in 

livestock prices, under 1990 prices and costs of production, 

would increase gross sales (of a median Idaho cattle operation] 

by $6,120 and would be more than enough to off-set the increase 

of the cost of the federal grazing fee [to $4.00 per AUMJ", while 

in Arizona (the State with highest dependency on public rangeland 

grazing) "An increase .•• to the $4/AUM fee level would increase 

total fee costs [for an average cattle operation] by $10,832 

annually. A little more than 5 cents per pound increase in liveweight beef cattle prices, under 1990 prices and costs of 

production, would be required to offset the increase in fees." 

b) On Federal revenues 

The update brings up to 1991 the estimates of differences in 

Federal revenues from different methods of setting grazing fees. 

It reports that for 1991 the current formula produced a fee that 
147 

9 

resulted in $34.3 million, while the adoption of one of the 

alternative ways of setting fees would have had the following 

results: 

Fee System 

Current 

Updated PRIA 

Modified PRIA 

Combined Value 

Modified Market 

(mature cattle} 

1991 Fee ($/AUM) 

$1.97 

$2.90 

$4.63 

$4.85 

$4.63 

1991 Revenue * 

($OOO's) 

$34,278 

$50,460 

$80,562 

$84,390 

$80,562 

* Revenue estimates assume all available AUMs used at each 

fee level; with higher fees, there may be decreased demand 

but update says this cannot be projected with any degree of 

certainty. Revenue estimate numbers were rounded in update. 

Fees Compared With Agency Costs 

To compare receipts from fees with the agency costs for rangeland 

management, including management of grazing, the update presents 

data about these costs "with and without" livestock qrazing in 

1990. For that year, BLM's total rangeland funding (including 

range improvements) was $43.505 million, of which $29.582 million was attributable to management of grazing; the Forest Service's 

total rangeland funding was $30.300 million, of which $22.422 was attributable to managing grazing. 

Stated in terms of $/AUM, the comparison between fees and agency 

costs is as follows: 

1990 RANGELAND MANAGEMENT COSTS (INCLUDING RANGE IMPROVEMENTS) 

(IN $ PER AUM} 

BLM* FOREST SERVICE 

For 

Total $ 3.21/AUM * $ 3.24/AUM 

program 

For 

managing $ 2.18/AUM * $ 2.40/AUM 

grazing (1990 grazing te§l ~ l,!!lL~UMl 

Total combined 1990 BLM and Forest service costs for managing 

grazing were $73.!!05 million; the total grazing fee receipts for 

1990 were $27.035 million; $5.534 million went to State and local 

governments, leaving a net deficit of $52.304 million for 

managing grazing (made up by appropriations). 

•It should be noted that in 1992 the Interior Department's Inspector General took issue with BLM's estimates of these costs. 

The Inspector General's report on this and related matters is 

discussed below. 
148 

10 

MAP OF •PRIC! AREAS• FROM 1986 REPORT AND THE UPDATE 

Inspector General•• Report 

In 1992, the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior 

issued an audit report, entitled "Selected Grazing Lease 

Activities, Bureau of Land Management,• based on an investigation 

aimed at determining whether BLK grazing permittees are "unduly benefitting• from the grazing program. 

Although dated •september 1992,• the report was not forwarded to 

Secretary Lujan until October 15, and not sent to Congress until 

october 20th. It was based on a comparison of BLM and Forest 

Service grazing policies, review of GAO and Administration 

reports and House hearings on the grazing fee and related issues, 

and interviews with BLM, Forest Service, and State officials. 

The report dealt with two aspects of BLM's grazing program--the 

absence of limits on the size, nationality, or other aspects of 

companies allowed to utilize grazing permits; and what the report 

calls BLM's failure to effectively prevent permittees' actual or virtual subleasing of grazing allotments for more than the fees 

paid to the United states. The conclusion was that these 

a9licies do enable pe~ittees_tp unqg~~Jit from the grazing 

E.rQ:gram. 
149 

ll 

Possible Two-Tier Fee System 

Unlike the Forest Service, BLM allows grazing permits (and the 

current fee structure) to be used by ranching o.perations of any 

size, including foreign companies and domestic conglomerates. 

(GAO has found that only 10 to 15% of BLM permittees graze 500 or more livestock, but control from 47 to 58% of the total AUMs.) 

To estimate large operators' benefits from the current grazing fee, the Inspector General assumed the current fee would apply up 

to a certain number of AUMs, after which the fee would be based 

either on the cost to BLM of providing grazing, or on the fair 

market value of the forage. 

The Inspector General did not accept BLM's method of developing 

its 1992 estimate that the 1990 cost to administer the grazing 

program was either $2.18 or $3.21 per AUM1 instead, the report 

said "we estimated that the Bqreau's cost of administering its 

grazing program ... in 1990 was $4.59 11 per AUM. 

Based on that estimate, the report concluded that in 1990 ~ 

could have recovered an between $1.6 million and $4.77 million of 

its costs by limiting availability of current grazing fees. 

Alternatively, the report said, BLM could increase receipts by 

requiring payment of fair market value for AUMs over a set limit. 

Here, for 1990, the Inspector General used the estimated 

wwestwide" figure of $6.84/AUM from the BLM/Forest Service 1992 

grazing fee update1 subtracting the 1991 fee of $1.97/AUM gives a wbenefit received" total of $4.87/AUM. If the $6.84/AUM fee .were applied to grazing above certain limits, BLM could have collected an additional $2.8 million to $8.36 million. 

Here are the Inspector General's estimates of additional 1990 

receipts (measured by saved BLM costs or by forage value) from 

limiting AUMs covered by the current formula: 

Limit on AUMS in excess Additional No. of operators cu~:~:ent f!;!e of limit r!i!geipts 6!f!i!!2:t!i!Q {!i!!i!:t.) 

5,000 AUMs 1,717,000 $4.773 million (costs) 414 

$8.362 million {value) 

10,000 AUMs 897,000 $2.494 million (costs) 144 

$4.368 million (value) 

15,000 AUMs 576,000 $1.601 million (costs) 66 

$2.805 million (value) 

Subleasing of Grazing Allotments 

Allotment subleasing is illegal. The FY 1985 appropriations bill 

required BLM to act to recover subleasing profits for the u.s., 

but the Inspector General said BLM has not done enough. 
lW 

12 

The Inspector General did not focus on direct subleasing (taking 

money to allow another's livestock to graze on an allotment) but on a more subtle form involving leasing of private base property. 

Unlike the Forest Service, BLM does not require permittees to own both the base property and the permitted livestock; so, owners can lease base property and "pad" the rent to reflect the 

economic value of the Federal forage available to the tenant 

under a grazing permit (which tenants must get for themselves). 

In 1984, Senator McClure inserted in the Congressional Record a statement to the effect that base property leases weren't covered 

by the requirement to recoup subleasing profits; so, BLM 

regulations don't require base property owners or tenants to 

provide data to identify amounts paid by tenants for base 

property leases, and no recoupment occurs. Therefore, the 

Inspector General said, the recoupment requirement "was not fully 

implemented" by BLM. Section 5 of H.R. 1602 is intended to close 

this loophole. 

The report said in 1990 there were about 1,850 leases of base 

property--about 9.7% of BLM permittees. To estimate possible 

profits that should have been recouped, the Inspector General 

calculated that these cases involved 1,047,600 AUMs (9.7% of 1990 

AUMs billed), then multiplied by either$ 2.78 (the Inspector 

General's estimate of BLM costs not covered by grazing fee) or $4.87 (estimated forage value not covered by grazing fee). Thus, 

the report said BLM should have recouped between $2.9 million 

(BLM-cost approach) and $5.1 million (forage value approach). 

As the report pointed out, these are crude estimates, not 

reflecting actual base-property lease rates--BLM has no data on those. The Inspector General recommended that BLM require baseproperty lessors to provide this data, or raise grazing fees for 

base-property tenants (as opposed to owners). 

OTHER RANGELAND MANAGEMENT ISSOBS 

In addition to grazing fees, both H.R. 643 and H.R. 1602 address 

larger issues related to the management of western rangelands by 

BLM and the Forest Service. 

These provisions are based on information developed through 

Committee hearings and oversight activities and the work of 

others, as discussed below. 

GAO Reports 

Since 1988, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has reviewed 

aspects of range management programs of the BLM and Forest 

Service, in some cases at the request of the Chairmen of the 

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. 
151 

13 

Based on these reviews, GAO has submitted a series of reports, 

including the following: 

--"More Emphasis Needed on Declining and overstocked Grazing 

Allotments" (June 1988); 

--"Some Riparian Areas Restored but Widespread Improvement 

Will be Slow" (June 1988); 

--"Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse Program" 

(August 1990); 

--"BLM Efforts to Prevent Unauthorized Livestock Grazing 

Need strengthening" {December 1990); 

--"Forest Service Not Performing Needed Monitoring of 

Grazing Allotments" (May 1991); 

--"Current Formula Keeps Grazing Fees Low" (June 1991); 

--"Comparison of Rangeland Condition Reports" (July 1991)1 

--"BLM's Hot Desert Grazing Program Merits Reconsideration" 

(November 1991); and 

--"Interior's Monitoring has Fallen Short of Agency 

Requirements" (February 1992). 

In January, 1992, Resource Concepts, Inc., based in Carson City, Nevada, submitted to Congress a document entitled "A Technical 

Review of u.s. General Accounting Office Rangeland Management and 

Public Rangelands Reports 1988-1990." This stated that the first 

three GAO reports listed above were based on "technically unqualified investigations" with the result that they have 

"technically invalid conclusions", and that therefore these three 

reports "should not be seriously considered by Congress in the 

deliberation of public land issues." At the request of 

Subcommittee Chairman Vento, GAO reviewed the Resource Concepts document and submitted a point-by-point response. 

Hearings 

Previous subcommittee hearings on grazing fees and related range 

management issues were held in September 1987, April 1989, March 

1991, and May 12, 1992. 
152 

Congressman larry LaRocco 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests 

H.R. 643 and H.R. 1602 

Or!~ and Public Lands 

Grazing Fees and Rangeland Management 

April 20, 1993 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing 

today to examine grazing fees and rangeland management in the 

West. 

Mr. Chairman, the cattle and sheep industries play a large and 

vital role in the economies of the Western states. Although Idaho is 

well known for potatoes, in fact the single largest agricultural 

commodity produced in Idaho are cattle. 

With two-thirds of Idaho's land base owned by the Federal 

government, some 90% of Idaho's livestock is raised on land 

managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of land Management. 

Therefore, many of my constituents have a significant stake in the 

outcome of the grazing fee issue. 

In contrast to much of the private land forage often cited by 

proponents of grazing fee increases, most of the public lands have 

little vegetation. It's on these lands that ranchers graze what are 

known as "twenty-forty" cows. The range is so sparse that the cows 

must have mouths twenty feet wide and must run forty miles per hour 

to eat enough to stay alive. 

Mr. Chairman, I understand the BLM will soon propose a new 

system of grazing fees on public lands. It would gradually increase 

the fees and credit the permitees for good stewardship of the public 

lands. 

This proposal, although not in final form has some promise to 

best serve public policy. It will improve the conditions on public 

lands; it will reward good stewards of the land; it will make grazing 

fees on public lands competitive with private lands; and, it will not kill 

a vital industry in the West. 
153 

Mr. Chairman, while I welcome this hearing, as well as the 

Administration-sponsored hearings currently underway around the 

West, I have serious reservations about H.R. 643 and H.R. 1602. While 

Western ranchers recognize that changes will come to the current 

system of grazing and rangeland management, they want any new 

system to be balanced, to be fair, and to be workable. 

For in the end, Mr. Chairman, it is the ranchers who are closest 

to the land and who know it must be managed well if they are to 

survive. We must all keep this in mind as we hear from this morning's 

witnesses. 
154 

California Farm Bureau Federation 

1601 Exposition Boulevard • Sacramento, CA 95815 • Telephone (916) 924-4000 

April 15, 1993 

Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

Chairman, House Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, 

and Public Lands 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Vento: 

The California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF) is a general farm 

organization with a membership of about 75,000 families. 

Approximately 1,600 ranchers, most of whom are CFBF members, pay 

for permits to graze cattle and/or sheep on lands in California 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S •. Forest 

Service (USFS). Therefore, we have a interest in grazing fee 

legislation. 

We oppose H.R. 643 (Synar/Requla) since its enactment would 

increase grazing fees on public lands to unreasonably high levels. 

The legislation states, "that the fee charged for any given year 

shall not increase or decrease by more that 33.3 percent from the 

previous year's grazing fee." 

California's permittees are very concerned about the economic 

stability of ranching operations if the grazing fee formula is 

revised as proposed by H.R. 643. We believe the PUblic Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA) has resulted in equitable grazing fee levels. 

H.R. 643 does not recognize the range improvements by permittees. 

stock ponds and other water impoundments tlui 1 t by permittees benefit livestock and wildlife. salt distribution, brush control, 

grass seedings, and predator control also benefit wildlife species. 

These improvements for livestock grazing have increased wildlife 

numbers and improved habitat, especially in areas with little 

rainfall or running water. 

Permittees usin<:J public lands make investments averaging $8,000 per 

year. These costs include construction and maintenance of corrals 

and fences, revegetation, water hauling and pumping, supplemented 

feeding, and noxious weed and predator control. 
Honorabl• Bruce F. Vento 

April 16, 1993 

Paqe Two 

155 

High grazing fees would shrink the amount of money collected by the 

BLM and USFS becauae fewer permittees could pay the higher rates. 

Some producers would go out of business. others would reduce the 

amount of federal grazing. As the numbers of AUM's drops, taxable 

income drops, which also would harm not only the income to the 

federal government but also to state and local governments. 

Grazing fee increases of the magnitude called for in H.R. 643 would 

discourage continued grazing on public lands and cause a serious 

disruption to the economy of local communities and a serious impact 

to the permittees. We urge the National Parks, Forest, and Public 

Lands Subcommittee to oppose H.R. 643. 

BLV:gwr 

sincerely, 

Aj ~\Jiu. ~':7rc'E President 

cc: Representative Bill Baker 

John Doolittle 

Representative Bill Thomas 

Richard w. Newpher, AFBF 
156 

J SRM I soCIETY FOR RANGE MANAGEMENT 

6512 Orland Street, Falls Church, VA 22043 

April 20, 1993 

The Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

Chairman 

subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515-6205 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The Society for Range Management offers the following comments on H.R. 1602, the "Public Rangeland Grazing Reform 

Act". SRH is the scientific and educational organization 

whose 5400 members provide professional expertise and 

leadership in the science and art of range management in the 

United States and internationally. 

Sec. 2. Grazing Fees: While the Society takes no position on grazing fees, considering that issue to be in the realm of 

economics and politics rather than natural resource management we acknowledge that a fee system which embodies 

strong incentives for excellent range management practices 

could well help to enhance range condition and productivity. 

We also recognize the substantial difficulties in fairly 

implementing such a system on a national scale. 

sec 2 (a) seems to repeal the provisions in FLPMA commonly 

referred to as the Range Betterment Fund. This seems counterproductive since it could inhibit investments in 

infrastructure contributing to better management of rangeland resources. Sec. 2 should also be clarified to correct the 

impression that PRIA and the Taylor Grazing Act apply to Forest Service management of the National Forest System. 

Such clarification would maintain a stronger management 

posture for the agency. 

Language in Sec.3 providing for reduction in the term of 

grazing permits from 10 to 5 years is, we feel, 

counterproductive. This change flies in the face of 

longstanding efforts to provide stability for communities and 

individual ranch operations. Further, it would serve to double paperwork and associated costs, wasting money which 
157 

could better be spent on monitoring and implementing plans to achieve improved conditions on the ground. 

Sec. 4 provides potentially helpful support for non-use of 

grazing privileges for wildlife enhancement purposes. This 

provision can have highly beneficial ramifications for 

avoiding big-game and livestock conflicts in many key habitat areas. However, the language as drafted removes discretion 

from the land-managing agency and vests it in the permittee. 

The decision to grant non-use for any purpose should rest with the agency charged with administering the land. 

Sec. 5. has the generally worthwhile objective of preventing 

subleasing of grazing permits; Forest Service regulations 

already do this, and BLM should have parallel requirements. 

However, this section should be revised to authorize issuance 

of permits to grazing associations who may in turn issue 

permits to their members, as is commonly done on some National Grasslands and in other situations. In addition, 

the restriction on subleasing might be inappropriate in some public lands situations where federal landownership 

constitutes only an incidental portion of the allotment under 

permit. Finally, this section should provide for ownership 

and control of both base property and permitted livestock to qualify for a grazing permit in all but exceptional 

situations. 

We request that these comments be made a part of the record 

of the hearing on this legislation. We hope our views will be 

helpful to the Subcommittee in its deliberation on H.R. 1602. 

Sincerely, 

:1¥~ Washington Representative 
SIERRA 

CLUB 

The Honorable Bru¢8 Vento, Chair 

Subcommittee on Public Lands 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Vento, 

158 

PUBUC LANDS COMMITTEE 

P.O. BOX 8408, RENO, NEVADA 89507 

(702) 329·6118 

April 28, 1993 

On behalf of the Sterra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC), we are submitting these comments on H.R. 1602, the Public 

Rangeland Grazing Reform Act of 1993. We strongly support the findings 

of this legislative proposal, especially the requirement that Federal 

rangelands and riparian areas be managed to achieve and sustain healthy 

native ecosytems as well as a full and thriving spectrum of biologically 

diverse plant and animal species within such ecosytems. 

For many years, the Sierra Club and NADC have been deeply concemed 

about the lack of significant progress towards Improvement of conditions 

on public rangelands, the Imbalance In federal agency management 

emphaSis which continues to favor commodity production over 

environmental protection and non-commodity uses of public lands and 

resources, and the continuing Joss of federal revenues from grazing fees 

charged at lees than fair market value. 

Our members have' been working for years for administrative and 

legislative grazing reforms to correct environmentally damaging grazing 

practices and Inequitable public land policies. These problems are well 

documented In a series of reports by the General Accounting Office and 

Investigations by the Office of Inspector General prepared over the last 15 

years through the previous three administrations. 

We commend you for this first comprehensive legislative proposal to 

remedy many of the chronic problema in the public land grazing program. 
159 

We strongly support the following provisions: 

1. the letting of grazing fees at fair market value (FMV): FMV 

grazing feea will provide an adequate return to the US Treasury 

for the llit of public resource•; they will correct the current 

Inequity between public and private livestock operations; they will 

provide a part of the necessary funding for the extensive restoration and 

rehabilitation of Western public rangelands damaged by livestock grazing, 

as well as basic permit administration; and they will remove the current 

Incentive public land livestock operators have to resist necessary grazing 

management changes. including reducing stocking rates to the carrying 

capacity of the lands. 

2. Immediately implementing FMV grazing fees: Without such a 

strong financial reason, we doubt whether very many public land livestock 

operators will be willing to work on the development of an incentive· 

based grazing fee program. 

3. directing the uae of the federal ahara of grazing tee 

receipts to restoration and improvement of fish and wildlife 

habitat, restoration and improved management of riparian areas, 

and implementation and enforcement of land-use plana, 

allotment plana, and grazing regulations: We believe strongly that 

grazing funds should be used to cover the costs of administration of the 

terms and conditions of grazing permits. If this Section provides tor use 

of grazing fee receipts for "on·the·ground range improvements." we 

would strongly oppose it since, in our experience, such Improvements are 

routinely used to increase or maintain livestock production In ways which 

are environmentally damaging. 

4. restricting the States' ahare of grazing fee receipts to 

local governmental purposes, not for lobbying Congress or to 

finance administrative or judicial casu related to grazing 

management: We have previously forwarded press clippings showing 

how a grazing advisory board In Nevada divided up Its share of grazing fee 

receipts among its members, absent any U.S. or State prohibition for 

personal gain. Although It would be difficult to find an argument to 

support how the public interest is served by permittees splitting up 

federal funds meant for "range improvement," this action was less 
160 

damaging than the one being considered at the time by the grazing 

advisory board of financially supporting a public land livestock operator's 

lawsuit against the U.S. government. 

5. changing the term of grazing permitt from 10 yeara to 5: 

Although we understand that the longer term was Intended to support the 

"stability" of the livestock industry, it has not achieved its purpose. In 

fact. we are now told that the industry's stability is totally dependent on 

continued economic subsidies, regardless of environmental costs (or 

length of permit). Instead, the 10 year permit is now considered by 

Federal agencies and permittees into a guarantee that grazing permits 

will be issued whether necessary changes in grazing practices are 

included or not. 

8. closing loopholes which permit the continuing practice of 

subleasing federal grazing permits for windfall profits: 

Subleasing is a blatant abuse of the privilege of grazing livestock on the 

public lands and yet perfect proof that if the marl<et set grazing fees, the 

value of federal grazing permits would be considerably higher than the 

PRIA·formula based current fees. We object, however, to provisions 

which permit the Secretary to allow trespass livestock to continue to 

graze on public lal'\ds. These provisions provide yet other loopholes which 

will be exploited by unscrupulous livestock operators who Intend to 

profiteer off federal grazing permits. These should be eliminated. 

7. eliminating grazing advisory boards (GABs): The rancher-only 

boards continue to facilitate the livestock industry's influence over the 

BLM. No other public land interest has its own "advisory boards," 

whether wildlife or wilderness or mining, etc. And GABs exert influence 

on not only the expenditure of grazing fee receipts for "range 

improvements• and allotment management plans, but also BLM decisions 

on wilderness study areas, wild horse numbers and management, and other 

public land decisions. 

8. waiving of grazing fees and livestock licensing requirements 

for allotments on which permittees decide to put forage on a 

nonuse status for conservation or wildlife enhancement: One of 

the most serious flaws in the current federal grazing program is that the 

federal agencies lack the option of NOT issuing grazing permits or believe 

that they cannot. except for a very short time, even if the current 
161 

pennittee wishes to put his or her permit in non-use for conservation or 

wildlife purposes. We believe that authorizing such non-use for a 

minimum period of 2 years Is wise, but urge you to clarify that the non· 

use time period is open-ended. In the arid West, 2 years is a very short 

time to accomplish significant restoration or rehabilitation of W. 

rangelands devasted by decades of overgrazing. 

The only major provision about which we have serious reservations is 

Sec. 2(c) authorizing alternative fees. While we are very supportive of a 

program which would require improvements in the • ... condition of affected 

range and riparian ecosystems and the biological diversity of such 

ecosystems .. ." as stated in this section, the Bush Administration's 

incentive-based grazing fee proposal Is seriously flawed. We have 

provided detailed comments on both the strong and weak points of the last 

Administration's fee incentive proposal to you previously as well as 

suggestions for strengthening amendments. 

We would like you to consider adding strengthening amendments to 

H.A.1602, as follows: 

1. Provlslona permitting livestock grazing only on public lands 

In satisfactory condition, except under agency approved 

rehabilitation plana. The criteria for satisfactory condlton should 

Include lands in good and excellent condition with static or upward trends, 

with riparian areas in proper functioning condition, with healthy wildlife 

habitat, and with grazing practices in compliance with land use plan 

objectives. standards and guidelines, and with pennit requirements. 

2. Provisions recognizing all u.s. citizens as •'affected 

lntereats" on public land grazing decisions. Federal agencies are 

currently unjustifiably denying certain members of the public from 

participating in management decisions on public lands. AU Americans own 

and are entitled to have our concerns about public lands and resources 

taken seriously by our federal managers. 

3. Provisions for identifying lands unsuitable for livutock 

grazing and the retirement of all grazing permits on such lands. 

Livestock grazing is not an appropriate use for every acre of public lands. 

Unsuitable lands may include: critical habitats for threatened and 
162 

endangered species, lands which are actively desertlfying or on which 

grazing is not ecologically sustainable, lands which have outstanding 

biological values which would be damaged or lost by the impacts of 

livestock grazing, and sensitive cultural resource areas. 

4. Provisions to withdraw from livestock grazing all public 

lands for which federal agency monitoring data do not provide 

an adequate basis for evaluating range conditions, estimating 

carrying capacity, determining whether land use planning 

objectives are being met by current grazing practices, and 

adequately administering the terms and conditions of grazing 

permits. Currently, federal agencies Issue annual grazing permits 

whether monitoring Is adequate for the above purposes or not. The excuse 

Is that the agencies do not have enough staff or funds to do an adequate 

job of monitori~ and permit administration. We believe that the only 

solutions to the agencies inability or unwillingness to make tough grazing 

decisions are to either require permit Issuance to be based on legally 

enforceable agency certification that livestock permittees are actually 

complying with land use planning objectives and permit terms and 

conditions or to simply prohibit agencies from Issuing grazing permits on 

allotments which they cannot adequately monitor. 

Thank you for considering our comments. 

Sincerely, 

Rose Strickland, Chair 

National Grazing Subcommittee 

0 

69-312 (168) 

~t/)j_/s/ Johanna Wald, Senior Attorney 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

ISBN 0-16-041089-4 

90000 

9 7801