H.R. 2493: The Forage Improvement Act of 1997

The Need: The debate over the use of public lands has created uncertainty and a lack of stability for western ranchers and their families. H.R. 2493, The Forage Improvement Act of 1997 is intended to bring greater stability to the industry, provide guidance to federal-lands managers, and protect the environment. While it does not address all issues affecting western ranching, such as the implementation of various environmental laws or how supply and demand affects the price of beef, it does make several measured changes that add to the stability and predictability of public rangeland management.

Public-land management agencies lack the financial and personnel resources needed to perform monitoring activities on many grazing allotments. And the resources they do have are consumed with administrative paperwork and appeals, not with rangeland monitoring. Therefore, in the absence of scientific data gathered from monitoring:

• Agencies cannot make informed resource management decisions;
• Permittees have no way to show that their good stewardship practices are contributing to good rangeland conditions; and
• Interest groups end up pursuing policy based on perceived, rather than actual, conditions which only impairs the decision-making process.

Status: H.R. 2493 passed the House of Representatives in October 1997, with significant support from non-western states. It is now awaiting consideration in the Senate. While the Senate did pass a much broader bill in the previous Congress, H.R. 2493 is a very narrow and specific piece of legislation. There is a window of opportunity to pass this legislation before the 1998 elections.

Key Elements:

1) Requires the two primary land management agencies, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, to coordinate their grazing programs. In this way, ranchers who use a mix of lands do not confront an array of different protocols. And, there is no competitive advantage regarding which agency a rancher deals with.

2) Scientific monitoring is required for range conditions and trends. The bill establishes a monitoring framework for the agencies, which expands the criteria for who can monitor to include people outside agency personnel, and puts in place a scientifically-based protocol for establishing reliable methods for collecting monitoring data. Those who know a great deal about the condition of the range, the ranchers who use it, are able to work with the agencies on the monitoring programs.

3) Subleasing by absentee ranchers is not allowed.

4) Discretionary authority is given to the government to work with ranchers to develop the best management plans with the greatest flexibility and to allow the agency to focus its resources in areas that need the most attention. Rather than one-size-fits-all management, creative approaches to meeting resource standards can be used.

5) A new grazing fee formula is established to ensure a fair return to the American people, while providing stability to the public-lands rancher. The formula, if enacted today, would raise the rate from $1.35 per animal unit to $1.84, a 36 percent increase.

6) Recreational uses of public lands where grazing occurs, such as fishing, hiking and hunting, are activities that cannot be interfered with. Similarly, multiple uses of public lands are encouraged.

What's Not Included: Previous versions of grazing reform have included a broad array of concepts and proposals. When reviewing H.R. 2493, it is critical to understand what is actually in the bill, not what may have been discussed in previous sessions of Congress. Here are some examples:

1) The bill does not affect any other use of public lands.

2) Public access to public land is not altered.

3) Livestock grazing does not become a priority use of public lands. All multiple uses must be maintained.

Grazing Fee: One of the most contentious issues about grazing on public lands is the fee the rancher pays to the American public. In general, the fee itself is less than what is charged to graze livestock on private or state lands. Many argue that all of these fees should be commensurate. This is not realistic for two primary reasons:

1) Usually the forage base is much better on private and state lands. When the West was settled, areas that were homesteaded and became private, or were taken over by the states, were the best lands. The remainder, which then became federal, were the lands with the lowest forage value.

2) On private land, a lease entitles the lessee to exclusive use of the land and existing infrastructure such as fences and water sources. On public lands, the rancher provides the infrastructure, thereby improving the public's lands at his expense, and he must follow the use conditions prescribed by the managing agency. These non-fee costs increase the price of grazing on public lands. The difference is akin to renting a furnished house versus paying a fee to be able to use a vacant lot for a few months out of the year.

Various studies have proven this point. Dr. Darwin Nielsen of Utah State University found that the cost for an animal unit per month (1990 values) was $17.54 on a federal grazing permit, and $14.79 on a private lease.

Similarly, a report to Congress by Drs. Gerhard Rostvold and Thomas Dudley, both of Pepperdine University concluded: "the livestock operator who uses federal grazing lands enjoys no economic and financial advantages." They specifically state: "Ranchers who rely on federal grazing lands experience higher costs and smaller yields than ranchers who do not rely on federal grazing," and "ranchers using federal grazing lands experience greater risks and a lower return on investment than rancher who do not rely on federal grazing."