Melissa Plasse
GE307
Hayes-Bohanan
November 25,2002
Cattle Grazing on Public Land
It’s hard to believe that only 135 years ago America was an untamed natural resource for grazing. Livestock was able to graze freely, ranching was a lucrative profession and there were no such things as permits or AUM’s. Many things have changed in 135 years. No longer can animals graze on federal land without a permit, and even then there is no absolute that a grazing permit will be allotted. Once it was a major concern for the government that land be divided into districts to prevent feuds among ranchers, now the governments main concern is land maintance and preservation. In this paper I will take a look at the Taylor Act and it’s 1995 revisions and how these legislations have effected those whose vitality and economic stability are based upon the land, land which is becoming increasingly hard to find.
History:
A new era began in 1867
with the very first successful long drive of cattle up north from Texas. Once this was accomplished cowboys began
driving cattle regularly each year through thousands of miles of federal lands
to railways. Once the cattle reached
the rail line, trains carried live cattle to newly opened eastern markets. These long drives initially brought high
profits. These high profits attracted
more ranchers and more cattle into the land, which was once home to Native
Americans and buffalo. The early 1880’s
cattle market boom saw cattle grazing grow well beyond seven million
More cattle meant more competition for ever scarcer water and grass. This competition was intensified by the arrival of sheep in the 1870’s.Not only did the increased competition for forage aggravate natural forage scarcity but droughts, blizzards and the growth of homesteading escalated the issue.
These
environmental challenges led to overgrazing, diminished profits and hostility
among forage competitors. Violent
disputes would erupt between cattle and sheepherders, between ranchers and
homesteaders and between those who fenced and those who cut fences to protect
open range. These disputes ultimately
culminated in the need for a law that would regulate this land, which at one
time had been free.
The Taylor Act:
The Taylor Grazing Act enacted in 1934 marked a turning point for the western rangelands, these lands being the vast, dry grasslands form Nebraska, Kansas, Texas and the Sierra Nevada. Ranchers had once been able to allow their livestock to graze freely in these rangelands, but the population growth that followed the Civil War would eventually make the reality of free grazing nothing more than wishful thinking (Number 98-1991).
In 1878 Major John Wesley Powell wrote to Congress explaining that ordinary homesteading laws would not work, what was needed was a general law which would provide an organization of pasture districts. The devastating drought and storms of the 1930’s finally made Congress spring into action and by 1934 the Taylor Grazing Acts were established (No.98-1991).
Ultimately the Taylor Act was created to promote the highest amount of use of the public land. The Taylor Act’s specific goals were to stop further injury to land due to overgrazing and soil deterioration as well as provide the Department of Interior use for improvement and development, as well as stabilize the livestock industry dependant the public range (Waterman). The Taylor Grazing Act organized federal land into 144 grazing districts for joint management by federal government and local stock raisers. As grazing allocations were determined the department would use a permit measuring Animal Unit Months (AUM’s), which is the right to obtain forage needed for one cow or five sheep in a months time. These permits were good for ten years and usually were renewed. Some cattlemen resisted this concept and tried to turn over management of these lands to the state government. However the effects of overgrazing were becoming obvious and the Taylor Grazing Act’s range rehabilitation plans received support from Congress. Today 22,000 ranchers lease grazing rights from the Bureau of Land Management to graze on 4 percent of the nations beef cattle.
The grazing regulations in effect from 1938 to present day made it clear that the department had the power to modify, fail to renew or cancel a permit. The Secretary was authorized to reclassify and withdraw land from grazing altogether and devote it to more valuable use. In the event of range depletion, the secretary may reduce the amount of grazing allowed on any amount of land by suspending AUM’s. (Renwick141)
The Taylor Act (43 USCS 315b.) gave the preference in the respect to permits. The permits were given to:
a. Land owners engaged in the livestock business
b. Bona fide occupants
c. Owners of water ways or water rights
The Taylor Act also provided grazing privileges, which would be safeguarded, but the development of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit did not create any right, title or estate in or to the land (Waterman).
In 1995 the Interior Department announced revised rules intended to improve the management and preservation of federally owned land, therefore elaborating on the Taylor Act. The revision was brought to the Supreme Court titled Public Lands Council vs. Babbitt (Waterman).
These revised rules are as follows:
43CFR4100.0-5 The changing of the definition of grazing preference.
43CFR4110.1a Those who are not engaged in the livestock business are eligible for grazing permits
43CFR4120.3-2b. Granted the US title to all future range improvements.
The Protests:
The ranchers attack the new “grazing preference” the most. Their position relies upon the provision in the Taylor Act, which states that grazing privileges recognized shall be adequately safeguarded. Before 1995 the term “grazing preference” referred to the AUM grazing privileges of the permit granted. The AUM’s being the total number of animal unit months of live stock grazing on public land apportioned and attached to base property. The 1995 regulations changed this definition so that now it no longer refers to grazing privlages “apportioned”. The new definition omits reference to any specified quantity of forage. Also this new term refers not to a ranchers forage priority, but to forage allocated by or under the guidance of an applicable land use plan. And here lies the ranchers concern. The ranchers argue that defining their privlages in relation to land use will undermine their stability. They contend that the content of “land use plans” is difficult to predict and easily changeable. Thus fearing that the resulting uncertainty will discourage lenders from taking mortgages on ranches as security of their loans. The new definition threatens their stability and possibly the economic viability of their ranches(Waterman).
The rancher’s second opposition is on the provision in which issuance of permits be to settlers, residents, and other stock owners. The ranchers contend that the deletion of engaged in live stock business violates that statutory limitation. The words “stockowner” and “stockowner engaged in livestock business” are not exactly synonyms. The ranchers underlying concern is that the qualifications amendment is a way to end livestock grazing on public land. The ranchers are adamant that individuals or organizations graze very few livestock all the while excluding others from using this public land. In other words permit equals conversation purpose(Waterman).
The
Defense:
In the 1995 amendments the ranchers disapprove of the term “grazing preference”. Congress claims that this new definition by itself does not automatically bring about self-executing change. The Department has said that this new definition does not cancel preference; this change in definition was primarily a classification of terminology (Waterman).
The ranchers are also uneasy with the phrase “stock owner”. The Department states that this change in word preference alone cannot render regulation facially invalid. This change will not lead to widespread issuance of grazing permits to stockowners. Those in the business of livestock can continue to enjoy a preference in the issuance of grazing permits (Waterman).
Lastly the ranchers are concerned with the amendment, which allocates ownership of range improvements on public land. The Department responded that since the Taylor Act gives the Secretary the power to authorize range improvements he also has the power to set the terms of title ownership to such improvements (Waterman).
The
Protests:
Protests are not confined to the courtroom; rather many protests have been taking place on livestock yards where captured cattle are kept. The ranchers have some much needed support from local residents as well as town officials.
For example. In San Bernardino County California Sheriff Gary Renrod cancelled an agreement that gave the U.S. Bureau of Land Management the ability to enforce state laws on federal land. The Sheriff of Sevier County, Utah has allowed ranchers their cattle back that were seized by the BLM after ranchers refused to take their cattle off of drought riddled range land(Sooner2-6).
This long running land dispute has pitted Westerners who claim their property rights are being violated against federal officials who are trying to protect the environment. Livestock grazing is an issue primarily in Nevada, which is the birthplace of the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970’s and 1980’s when miners and ranchers rallied to pressure law makers to take control of public lands. Many feel that a similar rebellion is underway (Sonner4-7).
The Opposition:
Grazing is allowed at about three dozen federal parks. Although the practice of grazing is legislatively sound it almost always causes conflicts between wildlife and natural resource policies.
Although the National Park Service is working to phase out grazing in many parks, many continue to allow grazing. Primarily this is because of agreements with the BLM. While Congress authorizes legislation on grazing, a vocal group of ecologists argue that no human activity has negatively affected land of the West more than livestock. “Grazing in National Parks is an incompatible activity, given what the parks were established for, cattle compete with native wildlife, degrade native plants and disrupt visitor experience. “The longer cattle persist in these parks the longer there is going to be conflict” says Tony Jewett NPCA regional director(Sooner2-6).
Debra Donahue states that the only reason that cattle remain in many national parks and much forest service wilderness area is the incredible political clout the livestock industry wields in Congress. “There is little or no scientific justification that can be made for livestock grazing on parks,” replied Donahue(Sooner2-6).
In all cases where grazing persists, it is legislated by Congress. Compromises were made in an attempt to ease tensions over fears that new national parklands would be unavailable for traditional local uses (Sooner2-6). These kinds of compromises can be seen in Grand Tetn, Utah. Over the years many cattle allotments in Grand Teton have begun to phase out. Those that do remain will become null and viod with the death of the beneficiary (Sooner2-6).
The park spends more than 40,000 annually to maintain these allotments; it receives 8,500 a yearning grazing fees. The cost of grazing the same amount of cattle on private land costs 81,900. Therefore the rancher enjoys more than 70,000 in subsidies each year (Sooner4-6).
“I don’t really even care to characterize these people as ranchers. They are trespassers. What they are trying to do quite frankly is get something for free from the American tax payers” said Bob Abbey BLM’s director for Nevada(Wilkenson).
Over the past few years, the park service has been successful in eliminating grazing from some of the parks where it has been at one time entrenched (Wilkenson). The Forest Guardians seek to protect public lands by filing lawsuits against the Forest Service for issuing grazing permits to cattle ranchers claiming the livestock causes irreparable harm to the environment(Wilkenson).
First the Forest Guardians find out which ranchers have grazing permit loans then they file lawsuits claiming that grazing endangers species under the Endangered Species Act (Natural Resource). Not all Forest Guardians lawsuits end with the removal of cattle. On October 30,2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that grazing does not cause harm to endangered species(Frank26-29).
The courts ruling stated that livestock grazing is flexible and can be altered if necessary. Livestock grazing does not cause unquestionable extinction of species. This lawsuit will force environmental groups to prove that continued grazing will harm specie before grazing is removed rather than eliminating grazing as a matter of course (Tessneer33).
Endangered Species:
Grazing has been blamed for the near extinction of the spotted owl in New Mexico; the cattle have depleted the amount of available prey for these owls, ultimately leading to their demise (Angel). Streamside ecosystems and fragile grasslands are being severely overgrazed (Wilkenson). Grazing also violates the Clean Water Act as well as causing erosion and destroying habitats. Grazing also has a tremendous impact on riparian area. Of the 12 Western states that have state fish 8 are considered endangered supposedly due to grazing. In the arid West the federally protected desert tortoise has been especially hard hit by grazing (Wilkenson).
The
Other Side:
Many ranchers believe that cattle grazing does not harm the environment. Elroy Garcia, a 70 year old rancher in Chamita, New Mexico, contends that there is plenty of land out their for cattle to graze upon. Garcia claims that although the ecologists are very knowledgeable, they do not know the land like some one who has worked with it and on it their whole life. “I know the land, I know the animals. They need the cows, the cowboys to take care of the land,” states Garcia. Garcia argues that the cattle are not for profit but a way of life. Cheap grazing allotments like the ones in the Santa Fe National Park help to keep century old traditions alive. “They (the environmentalists) don’t care about us; they don’t care about our culture” replies Garcia. To many ranchers this sentiment rings true. Many ranchers fight to retain their memories, their family history. “Our property, our livelihood, our ranch which has been in the family since 1862 is on the Forest Service chopping block” said Cliff Gardner when asked to why he refused to remove his cattle off of Forest Service Land (SmallingA-1).
The
Punishment:
In 2002 the BLM auctioned off 172 heads of cattle owned by the Te-Moak Livestock Association for not paying their grazing fee. The Department claims that the associacation had not paid their fees since 1984 therefore owning 2.5 million in back fees (Arruda15). Cliff Gardner was sentenced to jail for one month for refusing to remove his cattle form Forest Service land in a dispute that dates back to 1996. He was also fined 500 dollars (Arruda15).
In Fallon, BLM officials are holding 200 cattle owned by Ben Colvin and John Vogt saying they owe collectively 370,000 in fees and fines for grazing with out a permit since 1995(Arruda15).
Video cameras have also been placed on Federal Parks therefore when a rancher decides that he is not pleased with posted restriction area and he decides to remove the signs he will be fined for it (Tessneer40).
Conclusion:
In conclusion, it is a very difficult situation being put in front of the Secretary of the Department. Many people on both sides of the protest line feel strongly that the BLM should either be concerned with the endangered species and stream ecosystems and native habitat of the West being jeopardized by grazing, or on the other hand consider the ranchers, consider the fact that grazing livestock is their family tradition and their livelihood. There is no easy answer. To many ranchers maybe it’s worth it to sell their allotment to the Park Service. For others it is not a decision that can be controlled by money. In the mean time there seems to be no happy medium.
Angell,Jim. Judge Rules Livestock Program Threatens Mexican Spotted Owl. Silver City Sun News. 10/20/2002.
Arruda,Karl. Rancher Sentenced In Grazing Dispute. Associated Press.3/13/2002. pg15-17.
Cutter,Susan,L.Renwick,William H. Exploitation, Conservation, Preservation. Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc. 1999. pg.129.
Frank,Brain. Tribe Sues in Land Management Row. Associated Press. 5/30/2002. pg.26-29.
Natural Resources; Vol.10 No.9. Forest Guardians Work to Remove Cow’s From Federal Land.11/12/2002.
Smalling,Wes. Range Wars. The Santa Fe Mexican. Aug.4,2002.pgA-1.
Sooner,Scott. Property Owners,Feds Face Off. Associated Press.12/27/2001. pg2-6
Sooner Scott. Cattle Seizing Spurs Protests. Associated Press. 10/2/2001. Pg.4-7
Tessneer,Marvin. Appeals Court Agrees that Livestock doesn’t Hurt Endangered Species. Las Cruces Sun News. 10/30/2002.
Waterman,Ryan. Supreme Court Rules Against Ranchers, Upholds Grazing Regulations. Ecology Law Quarterly. Vol. 28 No.2 10/2001.
Wilkenson,Todd. The Beef with Livestock. National Parks.Vol.74. Issue 5/6 May2002. Pg.40