OCR Text |
Show industry, their faith and stamina. But how refreshing it would be to unsheath the Winchester Win-chester and have them tell it like it really is! If these same permittees would stiffen their backbone, call a spade a spade, and tell the subcommittee, "Thanks! But no Thanks!" If they'd lend their weight to organizations like the Public Land Users Coalition, we could win this battle, and the next one. It's possible that if we win enough battles, that we will once again have government govern-ment by the people not by bureaucracy. "Red" Thanhs! Out no thanks! Last week we attended the subcommittee subcommit-tee hearing on HR 10587 and 10589 in the Salt Palace. Having attended several subcommittee sub-committee hearings, and numerous agency meetings and public hearings, we were somewhat surprised at the difference in this one. We attribute much of this to the Honorable Hon-orable Cong. Tenio Roncalio, Wyo. who conducted con-ducted the hearings. He and Cong. Marriott Mar-riott and McKay both Utah, obviously were there to listen and learn, and were sincerely sin-cerely interested in the imput they were to receive. Whereas, in previous such meetings, meet-ings, we had attended it's been plain to see, the meetings or hearings were being held to satisfy a law, regulation or public demand, de-mand, and those conducting the meeting had no intention of listening, nor did they care. Another factor we feel, was that few of those testifying were speaking as individuals. in-dividuals. Most were speaking for associations, associa-tions, either state or multi -state, and what they espoused was in fact a committee decision de-cision on policy a watered down version of how the individual really felt. This conclusion con-clusion is based upon numerous conversations conversa-tions with these spokesmen, who personally personal-ly expressed hostilities toward segments of the bills and the agencies who will administer admin-ister the, that were not voiced for the record. Our interpretation therefore, of what they believed, and what the record will show Is quite different. The record will show that the permittees, permit-tees, cattleman and woolgrower alike, came almost hat In hand on bended knee, in favor of both bills, which will provide $360 million mil-lion over the next 20 years for range rehabilitation. re-habilitation. There was no or practically practical-ly no mention of the fact that though the bills provide for advisory boards of permittees, per-mittees, they have no power, no control of how the money Is spent or where or what on. All of this is left to the discretion dis-cretion of the Secretary of Interior which means that District Managers of BLM will have dictatorial power in all cases. Do the permittees believe that the giant bureaucracies of today, will listen to advisory ad-visory boards, as they did in the early stages of the Taylor Grazing Act? If this is so what then happened to the Taylor Grazing Act, the mulitple use act of 1964 and others? Why are they not functioning effectively as they did then? The answer is, of course, the growth-of growth-of federal bureaucracy. In 1934, most BLM district offices were staffed with one m an and an office girl. Today, they've got huge offices stuffed to the rafters with overnight experts that have no more knowledge of desert des-ert range than they would of running Macy's or Gimbles. That district manager in 1934had to depend de-pend upon the wisdom of the permittees. He was forced to rely upon their years of experience, and knowledge of the desert range. For that reason, and that reason alone the Taylor Grazing Act produced results. Good results, for several years. But the bureaucracies were threatened. It was possible that somebody might discover that the successes were attributable to the experience and expertise of the permittees those people who used and worked public lands. What then would be the need for BLM, the Forest Service, etc.? The bureaucracies expanded, more power, more money. They devised the Multiple Use Act of ,1964. Little did we realize that instead of protecting public lands for all multiple uses, that It would be used by the agencies to exclude some uses from public lands. Then in 1976, they came up with the Organic Or-ganic Act. This gives them the ultimate power over public lands. There are others, the Wilderness Acti Endangered Species Act, RARE and RARE II and many others. The point is that since the Forest Reserves Re-serves were established and later the Taylor Tay-lor Grazing Act, well intended laws have been manipulated by the ever growing bureaucracies, until today, public land users are at their mercy. HR 10587-10589, no matter how well intended, are the same. The power of this legislation is at the discretion of the Sec. of Interior and his subordinates. Have they earned this trust over the past forty -five years? It was shaming last Thursday to watch these descendents of the once proud barrons of the open range, humble themselves on bended knee, praying and trusting that the intent and purpose of these bills would be carried out. Their forefathers once defended this range with Winchesters and the noose. Today To-day they a re being driven off the range by the snail darter, would -fin minnow, lack of reasonable rea-sonable predator controls, wildhorses, wilderness wil-derness withdrawals, endangered species of noxious weeds, and mismanagement ofpub-lic ofpub-lic lands by 90 day wonders who's title makes them the Instant expert. We can support neither HR 10587 or HR 10580 because of the discretionary powers pow-ers given to the Sec. of Interior. Place these powers in the hands of a multiple use advisory board including cattlemen, woolgrowers, lumbermen, tourism and recreation rec-reation and let them determine how, when and where to spend$360milllon, and that's a concept we can buy. We must commend the permittees for their unity ofpurpose, their dedicationto the |