[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.
____________________