OCR Text |
Show Terms of permits now in use provide in broad language that use levels may be adjusted for "conservation and protection of the resource" or that they are subject to temporary adjustments to "protect and conserve the public lands affected." We view the absence of precise standards in these provisions as objectionable. Lack of specific standards to determine the level of permitted use contributes to uncertainty in the conditions of the permittee's tenure. Furthermore, it generates disputes between the managing agencies and permittees. Ranch operators have become better equipped technically in modern times to manage their own range. There is today a better understanding of the necessity for conserving the forage resources than existed before 1934. The range users have a vital personal interest in maintaining the resource at a high level of productivity. It is desirable that permittees be given greater control and more flexibility over range use. If more precise standards of permitted use for the maintenance of range conditions are incorporated in permits, the objectives of more certainty in tenure and greater permittee control over range can be obtained. The detailed unit management plans which have been in use by the Forest Service for some time, and are coming into increasing use by the Bureau of Land Management, provide much of the kind of specificity as to terms and conditions of use to which we refer. These plans attach to and are considered part of the grazing permit. According to information supplied by the administering agencies, this approach has led to greater mutual understanding of the responsibility of both the Government and the range user, and is contributing substantially to improved grazing use and range conditions. We recommend furthermore that, whenever practicable, rangeland should be allocated on an area basis to a permittee, and he should be required to maintain a specific range condition regardless of the number of animals grazed. This would place the range management responsibility squarely with the permittee. No limits would be placed on the number of animals to be grazed, but the permittee would be required to maintain carefully specified range conditions. Failure to do so would subject the permittee to penalties, including possible cancellation of the permit. While, under the Commission recommendations, if the permittee maintains proper range conditions rfe will not be limited in numbers of animals to be grazed, the administering agency should have the authority to lower the level of permitted use if range conditions fall below the level specified in the permit. This authority would be in addition to the right to cancel the permit under proper conditions. The 112 agency would have the right also to increase permitted use, as conditions warrant, in areas where it has been lowered. This authority, however, should be granted only on condition that, to the extent practicable, the agency specify in detail those range conditions which will trigger a permitted use level change. We recommend too, that the kind of public purposes for which a grazing permit may be cancelled should be identified in the permit. In present practice there appears to be an assumption that grazing has the lowest priority of use on public lands and may be displaced on the slightest pretext and wholly within agency discretion. That there are land uses which may be incompatible with grazing and which may deserve a higher priority must be recognized. Not all of such uses will be easily anticipated or described. However, to the extent possible those uses which may require cancellation of the permit should be identified and set forth in the permit. Those which can be anticipated but not precisely defined should be described at least in general terms. We believe that this requirement is essential even in those areas on which domestic livestock grazing is declared as a dominant use under a subsequent recommendation in this chapter. The very essence of our recommendations for classification and designations are not immutable. We recommend that permittees should be compensated when permits are cancelled to satisfy other public uses. The Taylor Grazing Act requires a permittee to be compensated for his range improvements if the permitted land is allocated to another permittee.10 Regulations under the Act also provide that an applicant for disposal of land covered by a permit may be required to compensate the permittee for permanent range improvements.11 If the curtailment or cancellation of any agency grazing permit is the result of dedication of the land to national defense purposes, the acquiring agency is required to determine an amount of compensation which is "fair and reasonable for the losses suffered" to be paid from funds appropriated for the defense project.12 The practice under this requirement has been to allow severance damages related to permit value in addition to compensation for range improvements. This practice should be extended to permit losses occurring whenever the permitted lands are diverted to other public uses as well, including disposals to third parties. Permit loss decreases base property value, and permits may be included with base property as loan security. The statutory and administrative practices " 43 U.S.C. § 315c (1964). 11 n. 9, supra. 12 n. 8, supra. |