[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 25, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: January 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                            RANGELAND REFORM

  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I received these letters during the debate 
on the rangeland reform measures in the 1994 Interior Appropriations 
bill. When they were submitted to the Congressional Record as part of 
the debate, they were not printed in their complete form. I would like 
to resubmit them now, so they can be appreciated in their entirety.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Sun Land and Cattle Co.,


                                      Hub and Spoke Ranch Co.,

                                    Rawlins, WY, October 20, 1993.
       Open Letter to Secretary Babbitt and Jim Baca: As ranchers, 
     our backs are to the wall and our lives are passing before 
     our eyes. Our destiny seems to rest on Malcolm Wallop and his 
     ability to avoid cloture and filibuster the appropriations 
     bill that contains the death sentence for the Western 
     livestock industry as we know it.
       A segment of people in this country want an end to 
     livestock grazing on Federal lands. That is a given. Right 
     now those people have the upper hand.
       The stated goal of the Clinton administration in proposing 
     ``rangeland reform '94'' is to alleviate the ``poor'' 
     condition of the Western range. Let's take them at their word 
     and assume they really want to improve rangeland conditions.
       Each range is different. Each allotment is unique. Each 
     should be studied by range conservationists in complete 
     cooperation with the rancher involved. The type of soil, 
     topography, vegetation, precipitation and climate, including 
     micro-climates, wind direction, etc. must be considered. 
     There are many things that can be done that are productive, 
     at least as long as it rains.
       As an example, Dr. Alan Savery has had great success with 
     his holistic resource management techniques. Intensive 
     grazing, when thoroughly understood and done properly can 
     produce astounding results. Let's use it on Federal land.
       The rating system used by BLM, at least in this area, is 
     very inadequate. While I understand the system is being 
     changed, or is going to be, it has resulted in very 
     misleading ratings in many areas. Many species, even though 
     native, are not listed in the technical guide, so their 
     presence gives no rating. Other species, many highly 
     desirable, give negative ratings because they are not 
     considered ``native'' to this particular area. Whether 
     they are or not, is not always positively known.
       The percentage of species allowed in each type of soil 
     seems to be set in stone. Over 30% sagebrush in sandy soil 
     will produce a poor rating even though old pioneer journals 
     recount how the brush was so tall and thick 150 years ago as 
     to almost stop their wagons from proceeding. And these are 
     the areas that are critical winter habitat for antelope.
       Areas with an abundance and wide variety of woody species 
     are given lower ratings, yet are excellent deer habitat. Too 
     many willows with little diversity along a stream produces a 
     poor rating, yet is great for moose. The desirability of 
     habitat for wildlife is not considered in this rating system.
       If the range is to be rated strictly on biodiversity and 
     forage for cattle and sheep, let's reseed it to what is 
     desired. We know it can be done with great success, as long 
     as we get moisture.
       O.K. Let's be realistic. Those two options probably won't 
     happen. Not right away.
       We know the powers that be want us off the Federal land. A 
     June 23 memo from assistants Kevin Sweeney and Lucia Wyman to 
     Secretary of the Interior Babbitt, Jim Baca and Tom Collier 
     stated, ``Our own statistics can be used to show the range is 
     in better shape than at any point in this century. With that 
     in mind, we must make deliberate and public attempts to prove 
     how bad the conditions are in many riparian areas.'' In other 
     words, ``Our arguments are lies so we must really push 
     them.''
       So if they want us off Federal land I have three 
     suggestions. Ranchers should be given a choice:
       1. Buy us out. Just the ranch, not the cattle. That 
     includes paying for our private land, our improvements on 
     Federal land and the grazing permits that we bought and paid 
     hard money for before we ever got to the grazing fee, and on 
     which we have been taxed. Get a fair appraisal of pre-Mike 
     Synar prices and buy us out.
       A few years ago there was a dairy buy-out. The Government 
     bought quite a few dairy herds. Enough to wreck the cattle 
     market for a while. Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords said he 
     wanted his dairy farmers to be able to ``retire with 
     dignity.'' We would like to do the same rather than start 
     over in our ``golden years.''
       2. Instead of buying us out, buy a private land ranch--
     probably in another state--of equivalent value and trade us. 
     We'll just move our cows.
       3. Swap private and Federal land in the checkerboard areas 
     so ranchers there could get off the Federal land and block up 
     the private land. This would provide pastures with strictly 
     private holdings and large blocks of Federal and with no 
     private land intermingled. Of course, it would provide the 
     rancher with just half of the pasture he had before. He would 
     have to be compensated for his grazing permits and 
     improvements, at the very least.
       4. Small Federal land parcels surrounded by private lands 
     should be sold at a nominal cost to the owners of the 
     surrounding lands. These small pieces are always bare, rocky 
     hills or an equivalent. That is why no one took title to 
     them.
       Last, but probably most important, let's use real science 
     instead of psuedo-science where the procedures are tailored 
     to fit the desired outcome.
                                  ____

                                    Boulder, WY, October 20, 1993.
     Senator Malcolm Wallop,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wallop: Hello, my name is Suzy Michnevich. I 
     am one of three working partners on our cattle ranch in 
     Sublette County, Wyoming. We own 3,083 deeded acres. We also 
     hold one state school section and a 583 AUM Forest Service 
     lease most of which is on the Bridger Wilderness and 1,043 
     AUMs of Bureau of Land Management leases located in two 
     tracts, one 14 miles southwest of and the other two miles 
     northeast of our deeded land. We have approximately 1,000 
     cattle, 20 horses, several herds of antelope, deer, elk, and 
     a few moose, many birds, rabbits, rodents, trout, and three 
     families including six children for which we feel 
     responsible.
       My great-grandfather took excellent care of his and the 
     government's land by being instrumental in the formation of 
     the New Fork East Fork Grazing Association in 1902. Today, we 
     are still members of this association which is committed to 
     the conservation of our resources. So much so that in 1992 
     our association was nominated by the U.S. Forest Service for 
     a stewardship award. My family is involved in agriculture for 
     the long haul. For as long as we can afford to raise cattle, 
     we will do so. We raise our children beside us feeding 
     cattle, moving cattle, irrigating, fixing fences, and putting 
     up hay.
       My son spent his first two years with me in a backpack or 
     in a truck or tractor, not in daycare. He is taught our work 
     ethic and our morals from before sunup to after sundown. He 
     is not raised by someone else. Now as a kindergartner, he 
     reflects this by going to school and enjoying his classmates 
     and taking his classwork seriously. He is one confident 
     little boy.
       My husband is a carpenter and works away from the ranch as 
     does my sister-in-law. We could not make ends meet were it 
     not for their outside jobs. Both of them help on the ranch 
     when they can.
       Our deeded ranch land along with the state and federal 
     leases has a greater carrying capacity than we now utilize so 
     we are in the painful process of rebuilding. Each partner 
     receives $800 per month. we are working toward 
     increasing this salary in the near future. Along with the 
     outside jobs mentioned, our families live on this amount 
     of money without welfare, free school lunches, or free 
     health care. Our lives are rich in other rewards besides 
     money. We do, however, have a breaking point.
       Ranching in northwestern Wyoming is difficult at best. 
     Profit margins are very thin. Every day we wage war with 
     weather we cannot change and disease. We have made enormous 
     strides with animal health, but if our neighbors do not take 
     the same precautions we do, then our animals' health can be 
     in jeopardy. We have to count on our ranching neighbors to do 
     the right thing not only for themselves personally but for us 
     also.
       In our community they do for the most part. We work 
     together even though we all have differences of opinion 
     concerning ranching practices, i.e. different types of haying 
     operations, horses vs. mechanization, fertilizer usage, and 
     how much water is used to irrigate a particular piece of 
     ground. We do, however, all agree on the following points:
       1. We are opposed to overgrazing and try to improve our 
     resource which is grass. We have been excellent stewards of 
     the land.
       2. Families are the mainstay of the ranching industry. Our 
     children need to know they can continue to make a decent 
     living in agriculture.
       3. We all enjoy wildlife and enjoy providing habitat for 
     them, however, if cost and regulations cause us to abandon 
     leases, the wildlife and hunters who chase them will no 
     longer be welcome visitors.
       My family is among fourth-generation ranchers in the East 
     Fork valley, but we see changes occurring. A few of our 
     neighbors have had financial problems and decided to sell 
     out. Our new neighbors, not having the experience of four 
     generations, have made stewardship errors that make our peers 
     in the community cringe. Some have decided not to raise 
     cattle, allowing the land to go fallow. Some have decided to 
     keep cattle but do not realize the work, feed, and care 
     necessary to raise cattle at an elevation of 7,200 feet. It 
     takes years for them to learn to shift priorities from their 
     own personal comfort to their animals' care. Newcomers do not 
     allow fishing or hunting on their properties even to those 
     visitors polite enough to ask permission. I have noticed that 
     the cowboy mystique wears off within a few years after 
     purchase and for-sale signs go up. To whom will these places 
     be sold? The serious livestock raisers cannot afford to pay 
     land prices that have been inflated by sale after sale. Is 
     this valley doomed to become an unproductive vacation spot 
     for the wealthy who put their own personal interests 
     first? Each year our land taxes increase because of 
     inflated land values caused by our new neighbors' ability 
     to buy land that cannot pay for itself through production. 
     Due to these continually inflating prices, the land must 
     be sold again and again at an ever higher price eventually 
     to someone who will subdivide or to someone who is just a 
     part-time resident and who does not feel the need to 
     become a responsible member of the community.
       If a substantial grazing-fee increase is voted into law, it 
     will be one more nail in the ranching industry's coffin. If 
     petty regulations designed to assist in the demise of 
     ranchers using and paying for federal lands are also voted 
     in, then each one of those will be yet another nail in that 
     same coffin. This community and our local town of Pinedale 
     has a stable economy augmented by agriculture. if agriculture 
     is removed so will a year-around economic stabilizer.
       Ranching provides not only a safe, economical food source 
     but also responsible community members and a recreational 
     resource to those who respect us and our land. I feel a large 
     grazing-fee increase and increased regulations are the 
     government's solution to rid themselves of users of federal 
     lands. When the cattle go, the grass will go also. The 
     ability to graze on federal lands has allowed us to improve 
     this resource. Private grazing leases are virtually 
     unavailable and should be put on the endangered species list.
       Honorable Senators, please try to understand western 
     ranching practices before you vote for something that could 
     devastate an entire industry in the western states. Before 
     you decide and vote, I invite you to come see our ranch and 
     stay with my family. Come see and understand our industry 
     firsthand. I invite any of you to come any time. My address 
     is 88 Scab Creek Road, Boulder, Wyoming. We can all survive 
     and prosper together. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Suzy Michnevich.
                                  ____

                                                 October 19, 1993.
       Dear Senator Wallop: The last gasp letter is written on 
     behalf of ourselves and especially our relatives and 
     neighbors who have a longer heritage of sheep and cattle 
     ranching on the west side of the Big Horn mountains. Several 
     participated in the Bozeman, MT hearing held by Secretary 
     Babbitt and responded in writing as he requested, and again 
     in response to ``Rangeland Reform `94.''
       None of us are against a fair increase in grazing fees and 
     all want to continue to improve rangeland conditions. We 
     sincerely believed in July that the current Administration 
     would sort out fact from rhetoric, as Secretary Babbitt 
     repeatedly stated. The facts would speak for themselves, and 
     we assumed he would work with the western states, governors, 
     local communities and others through the hearing process.
       It is now obvious we were wrong. The Administration has 
     become increasingly arrogant and clearly intends to increase 
     fees by 125% and implement new regulations designed to force 
     many small business ranchers into liquidation. Mr. Babbitt 
     concealed his true agenda while in the West. He obviously 
     planned all along to drastically reduce livestock grazing on 
     public lands as part of the political payback commitments to 
     the new big business environmental groups. Many of us were 
     naive to believe the Interior Department appointees would do 
     what is right for our country, and that jobs would be 
     considered somewhat important.
       Unless you and your fellow senators are successful in 
     achieving a commonsense compromise that establishes a fair 
     fee system and responsible regulation changes through the EIS 
     process, you can be assured that up to one-third of western 
     federal land livestock producers will be out of business in 3 
     years. Up to 50,000 jobs will be lost only to be exported. 
     Imports of boxed beef will increase by over 300 million 
     pounds per year with an equivalent annual increase in the 
     deficit. Social impact and welfare payment increases of 
     another $400 million per year are the last thing our country 
     needs at this time. All for what--a $30 million maximum 
     increase in annual fees and questionable environmental 
     improvement. If this keeps up, our economy will collapse.
     Jim and Virginia Foreman.

                          ____________________