The deeper story on multiple use lands issues

Letter to the Editor:

While some view the battles between ranchers and federal agencies odd or even dangerous, an examination of history and fact show that there is reason for the current difficulties. For one recent letter writer to call the ranchers in Oregon ‘bullies who seek to appropriate public land for their own selfish use’ displays a real lack of understanding of both history and public land use. In a nutshell, these ranchers lease said public lands and pay fees for those leases. Nevertheless. the issues involved are indeed complex and as usual, the mainstream press is not telling the whole story.

Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, grazing districts were created on public lands and overseen by a division of grazing which regulated the use of these lands by ranchers. These ranchers paid lease fees based on AUM’s (animal unit month = 1 cow/calf or 5 sheep or 1 horse).  By June 1935, over 65 million acres had been placed in public grazing districts. Many saw great benefit in using huge expanses of open land to produce meat, wool, leather, etc. for Americans. They realized that only ruminants (cows/sheep) can ingest grass and make meat, fiber, etc. Historically, these leasers of public lands have added to the value & improved the quality of these lands by personally installing watering sites (catch basins), fencing, distributing salt licks, seeding forage, and other practices that not only enhance livestock grazing but also wildlife habitat. (and yes, hunters/fishermen used the land too)

In 1976 the Taylor Grazing Act was superseded by the Federal Land Policy Act which introduced the concept of multiple use to public lands. Multiple use included commercial activities like grazing and timber harvest plus recreation, watershed and wildlife management, hunting, etc. Sadly, over the years this bedrock principle of multiple use on public lands had been seriously challenged by special interests. Pressure has been brought to bare on agencies which oversee these lands resulting in certain uses being favored over others. Grazing by livestock is one of the losers. Is it any wonder those being shoved off land they’ve leased are pushing back? (these leases are somewhat similar to those who lease summer cabin sites on state land – would those folks like it if their lease terms were continually changed or if they were told to get off the land all together?)

So, what is fair? Should those with the loudest voices and lots of money dictate policy? Should one use be promoted at the expense of others? If the livestock people don’t think so, is it wrong for them to object? They legally lease the land, some of them for several generations. Most of them are good, hard working folks who help feed us. They also pay lots in private property/income taxes which pay the very wages of those government employees now working against them and help keep public schools open. Is it wise to ‘bite the hand that feeds us?’ What happens if they go out of business?

While only 6 percent of all U.S. land is developed, the behemoth now known as the federal government ‘owns’ over 30 percent. Is there something wrong with ‘this picture?’ According to many Constitutional experts, the answer is yes. They opine the U.S. government has no right to own even one acre of land outside of Washington D.C. Many advocate returning most ‘federal lands’ to state and local agencies - which means more local control and which have much better track records of land use and management than do federal agencies. The latter have become increasingly bloated, ideologically driven and unresponsive to their employers - the U.S. tax payers. Think about how much access we’ve lost to our public lands in this county/state. Do you really think ranchers are the ‘bad guys?’ If so, think again and read: “War on the West: Government Tyranny on America’s Frontier,” by Wm. P. Pendley or Rand Paul’s “Government Bullies.” Don’t believe much of what is printed in the mainstream press.

C.A. Disney,

Libby