OCR Text |
Show When market and other conditions in the vicinity of permitted lands are taken into consideration for each permit, grazing fees will vary based on conditions in each permit area. The fee schedules used for lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management have always been for a uniform, universal fee. The schedule adopted for public land grazing in 1969 was similarly a single fee for all lands. It is unrealistic to charge the same fee without consideration of variances in operating and economic situations or differences in the quality of public range land and forage yield. The fallacy of the uniform, universal fee approach is even more evident if the fee schedule is truly designed to achieve comparability with private charges, which vary from locality to locality. Forage in an arid or semiarid area simply is not worth as much as forage in a humid area of lush vegetation. This fact should be recognized and fee schedules should be varied accordingly. We believe that an equitable allowance should be afforded to current permittees for permit values in establishing grazing fees. As a matter of law, public land grazing permittees do not acquire any right in the permitted land. Federal land management agencies have objected to any proposal to consider permit cost or value in fixing grazing fees which, they say, would thereby recognize an interest in the permitted land. It is argued that, while permits are assigned a value in transfers of base properties and as loan collateral, these involve transactions between private parties not involving the Government. As has been pointed out previously, the Government has contributed to the concept of permit-value in the administration of the statutory preference right of renewal, the payment of compensation upon permit termination for defense purposes, and statutory recognition of a right to include the permit as loan security. And, since a purchaser of base property can be almost certain that he will qualify for and be awarded the permit, it is only a technical question as to whether the permit is "sold." The recommendations of this Commission, if adopted, will establish more stability of tenure for permittees. The permittee will obtain compensation when the permit is terminated by diversion of the permitted land to another Federal use. However, the value of permits in the market is affected by the fee rates which are charged for grazing on the permitted lands. An increase in grazing fees will tend to decrease the value of permits. As the cost of operating on the permitted land is increased by higher fees, the value of the permit to the operator will be correspondingly less. Accordingly, the overall value will become unimportant once an equitable adjustment has been made for current holders. Recognition must also be given to the fact that a portion of the public land would be relatively worthless after the expiration of some period of time unless operated as a unit with base properties. Uniformity of Policies Recommendation 45: Policies applicable to the use of public lands for grazing purposes generally should be uniform for all classes of public lands. There are significant differences in grazing policies employed by Federal land management agencies. Fee schedules vary, for example, as do methods of allocation and terms of permits or leases. These are differing policies within agencies for different classes of lands. The use of different policy systems unnecessarily complicates administration. Ranchers who use more than one type of Federal land must adjust their operations to conform to different sets of rules. While it may be necessary to vary permit requirements in some areas in which grazing is not a dominant use, such as in military installations, the policies applicable to public land grazing should be as uniform as possible in such matters as initial allocation, pricing systems, terms of permits or leases, compensation, investment, and financing. 118 |