OCR Text |
Show mmmmmmmmimmmm W0M0M0] ?8% | 27% mmm 17% mm 17% mm 6% j 13% | (A Z34% §» CONTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC LAND FORAGE TO TOTAL FORAGE CONSUMPTION IN THE 11 WESTERN STATES, 1966 STATE NEVADA UTAH ARIZONA IDAHO NEW MEXICO WYOMING OREGON MONTANA COLORADO CALIFORNIA WASHINGTON Western ranches depend on forage consumed on public lands as a portion of their year-round supply. logical balance exists which, once upset, may not be reestablished easily, if at all. The so-called frail lands in the more arid sections of the West, and the steep mountainous areas which have shallow soils and a short growing season, are examples. The result of this deterioration in many areas has been degradation of the environment. Congressional guidelines for correcting such situations are minimal. The objectives of public land policy should be explicit and not only place priority on the rehabilitation of deteriorated rangeland where possible, but should exclude domestic livestock grazing from frail lands where necessary to protect and conserve the natural environment. Allocation of Grazing Privileges Recommendation 39: Existing eligibility requirements should be retained for the allocation of grazing privileges up to recent levels of forage use. Increases in forage production above these levels should be allocated under new eligibility standards. Grazing permits for increased forage production above recent levels should be allocated by public auction among qualified applicants. When initial allocations of grazing privileges were made, upper limits on the size of permits established by the Forest Service prevented large ranchers from dominating the range. Although there is no upper limit on the number of permitted livestock under the Taylor Grazing Act, the practices adopted under the Act effectively stabilized ranch sizes and operations as they existed when the Act was passed. Permit renewal policies, giving existing permittees preference, 108 assure that these initial allocations will be continued. The effect of the initial allocation system was to commit all of the rangeland area under the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to actual or potential use for domestic livestock. First determinations of ranch base property capacity (com-mensurability) fixed a ceiling on the amount of potential public land grazing privilege to be allocated to each ranch. Since administering agencies soon found that their public land range was not capable of supporting grazing to the extent of the sum total of all com-mensurability ratings, public land capacity was allocated proportionately to those ratings among all of the qualifying ranch properties. The maximum limit of public land grazing capacity, on both good and poor condition range, was allocated to individual ranch properties which, in most cases, qualified for more actual use than permitted. As forage production from public land increased, the stated policy is to allocate the increase to each base property to the limit of its commensurability rating. However, we find that this policy has not always been observed in practice. At the same time, initial determinations of permitted use have generally been decreased when necessary to adjust use pressures to range capability in order to achieve natural restoration of vegetation. The result of present practice is an over-commitment of land to support recognized dependent properties; continued pressure to upgrade forage production on land that should be removed from the recognized grazing land base; and a continuous pressure to satisfy the standing deficit of permitted use grazing capacity assigned to qualified base properties many years ago. Forage for Wildlife We recommend that in allocating forage for domestic livestock, forage necessary for support of wildlife in a particular area should be taken into consideration. Regulations under the Taylor Grazing Act provide for the allocation of a reasonable amount of forage to wildlife.5 But there is no statutory provision requiring such allocation. The regulation is directed primarily to protecting big game. There are, however, other forms of wildlife which are subject to adverse competition from domestic livestock. Forage allocations are as appropriate to these species as to big game. While forage consumption by wildlife can only be estimated, more specific statutory direction to consider all species in allocating forage would provide a basis for cooperation with state game and fish ¦r'43 C.F.R. §4111.3-1 (1969). |