OCR Text |
Show Page 2 UTAH FARM BUREAU February, 1969 NEWS The Grazing Fee Increase May Wipe Out Many Ranchers te move by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and The sudden the U.S. Department of Interior to increase the fees for grazing animals on the public lands threatens the very existence of many Utah ranchers. last-minu- The fee hike was supposed to be a Bureau of the Budget move recognizing joint study conducted by the B.L.M. and the Forest Service into the costs of move without actually using the lands. As a matter of fact, it was slap-darecognition of the true cost factors of running livestock grazing operations on the public lands. The study did not recognize the grazing permits as having any inherent value. This is a slap in the face for western ranchers who have known for a generation that the permits do have a real value that can be calculated. a sh When the Taylor Grazing Act came into effect the permits were issued in recognition of the fact that many people had a grazing right to the land. In those days it was spoken of as a right. Since then it has drifted toward a privilege, even though some of the operations involved had been grazing the land since the time it belonged to Mexico. Over the years the ranches have been bought and sold and the permits have been sold with them. Loans have been made using the permits as collateral and even the sacrosanct Internal Revenue Service has recognized this value in dollars and cents. The boost in fees, if it is allowed to stand, will shatter the value of the permits in the hands of ranchers. In fact, Darwin B. Nielsen and N. Keith Roberts of the Utah State University Department of Agricultural Economics point out that a fee increase of this nature would reduce the permit value to zero. Current holders of permits lost an average of $14 per animal unit month (aum) invested in BLM permits and an average of $25 per aum invested in Forest Service permits the day the fee increase took effect. The economists further estimated that Utah ' ranchers would lose about $385,000 a year in income. And of course, if the ranchers go out of business entirely, the loss to Utahs economy would run into the millions each year. But central to the problem is the fact that the agencies involved in the action conducted their own study, evaluated their own findings and issued their own rules. Unless Congress decides to overrule the action, there is no appeal. Whether the action of this nature is from the federal government or a county government, it is a violation of sound governmental procedure. Hopefully, with the built-i- n checks and balances of our federal system (which havent all been eliminated yet) there may yet be hope for the future. The Public Land Law Review Commission is still looking at the whole public land situation with reports due next year. A federal judge in New Mexico has agreed to hear a case on the subject. Possibly some sanity may yet prevail in the issue. Yearbook of statistics is issued by USDA A fact-fille- d yearbook on American agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1968 has been released by USDA. The publication, with 14 chapters and more than 600 pages, provides detailed information on agricultural production, prices, supplies, costs, and income. Tables are included on land use, farm ownership, farm workers, and food consumption. There are also statistics on weather, fisheries, forestry, world crops, and foreign trade. New tables in this issue include Commodity Credit Corporation quarterly investment in price support operations, data on the cropland adjustment and cropland conversion programs, and nutritive value of food used in homes. Agricultural Statistics, 1968 is available for $2.75 from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Office, " Washington, D.C. Printing 20402. That Land Grab Weve heard a lot of comments about the former Presidents action in adding land to two of Utahs National Monuments - - none of the words were favorable. One of the expressions indicated that the Executive Branch of government had taken land belonging to the state and added it to the monuments. That simply isnt true. The land belongs to the federal government anyway. It simply changes status. Grazing, mining, lumbering and other commercial activities will be phased out. Camping will be allowed, though hunting will not. Camping on BLM land is not normally a pleasant activity except for the rugged type of outdoorsmen. There are few organized campsites, with fireplaces, water, etc, since the administration goals of the land didnt plan for this type of activity. Theres a good chance that camping wont be done on the new land either for quite a while since members of the House Interior Committee are generally opposed to this kind of action by executive decree. Theyve left some other chunks of ground without funds because of this resentment. It seems to me that the goal of many interested parties in Washington and other places, would be the conversion of most federally-owne- d lands in the West to either park, monument, or wilderness status with no economic generation allowed. really burn me about the whole question. One is the conservationists are affluent, chair-bouwho have no real concept of nature or true consernot personally familiar with the land they plead for. Too many of the bleeding hearts rely on slick brochures and pamphlets prepared by preservationist groups for their information. They often campaign, collect or donate funds ( as the case may be) on behalf of a campaign to "save some particular piece of land somewhere because it has some redwood trees growing on it or because the last of the redtailed gimbleflltzers abound thereon, without having ever set foot on the ground in question. Many of the leaders of some of these groups are not real conservationists, either. They are articulate, pseudo-exper- ts adept .at winning congressional support, much is the pity. Two things fact that many meddlers vation and are of the so-call- nd ed The second thing that burns me is that fact that many of our own people w'ho have had the opportunity to purchase some of the federal lands passed it up in favor of federal administration. I predict that the only people who will be using the range in the year 2000 will be the people who own it themselves. In my opinion, any attempts to try to find conciliation in the continued use of the public lands by grazers ( or any other economic group) are exerclxes in futility. The pressure on Congress from big city areas continues to mount and theyre going to push us off all of the public land, though it may take a few years. Our efforts should be directed toward purchase of every piece of rangeland the federal agencies are willing to sell, and further toward pressure on Congress to follow the expected recommendations of the Public Land Laws Review Commission on the subject of disposal of public land. They can take your land away from you and add it to a park or monument, but its a lot easier if it belongs to them. The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the organization or of this publication. Published each month by the Utah Farm Bureau Federation at Salt Lake City, Utah. Editorial and Business Office, 629 East Fourth South, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102. Subscription price of twenty-fiv- e cent? per year to members is included in membership fee. Entered as second class matter March 24, 1948 at the Post Office at Salt Lake City, Utah under the act of March 3, 1879. , UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION OFFICIALS Elmo W. Hamilton, Riverton President S. Jay Child, Cleafield Vice President Mrs. Willis Whitbcck, Bennion Chairman, Farm Bureau Women V. Allen Olsen Executive Secretary Kenneth J. Rice Editor DIRECTORS . District One, A. Alton Hoffman; District Two, William Holmes; District Three, Jack Brown; District Four, Don Allen; District Five, Ken Brasher, District-Six- , Lee Barton; District-SevenRichard Nelson. , |