OCR Text |
Show (10) High prices for ranch and range lands and high fixed charges in the past on occasion have been pushed up to levels beyond their real earning capacity, though recent market prices for products have decreased the disparity between costs and returns. Overcapitalizing leads the livestock oper- ator to attempt a balance between fixed charges and income by overstocking the range. This process may bring more income temporarily but at the expense of the range and at the expense of the water resources because overstocking leads to erosion and sedimentation. Eventually this leads to depleted range resources and a declining income. The prevailing land cost of range livestock opera- tions is a fixed charge to the extent of one-fourth to one-third of the total gross range income. This cost includes (1) interest on land values, (2) cost of leasing- land, (3) public land-grazing fees, and (4) land taxes. The trend of fixed land charges on western range has been constantly upward. One cause is that range holdings have had to be accumulated piecemeal; it has been difficult for operators to calculate the value of a complete, well- balanced ranch property. Another cause is a tendency to capitalize income opportunities during periods or high livestock prices. The decline in number of livestock the range will carry also has contributed to high land investment per animal unit. The lease rates paid on privately owned range land are generally much larger than the amount that can be carried if the operator is to realize wages and financial return on his livestock investment without overgrazing. (11) Prevailing land taxes in many cases also represent fixed charges that were set on the basis of earnings higher than the land can produce under a range economy. These high tax rates followed early development of an economy that could not be sustained. Poor assessment technique and lack of accurate information as to the long-time earning power of range lands also have contributed to the present tax load. (12) MCany producers are dependent on a variety of range o-wnerships. During the course of a year their operations may cross the boundaries of State, county, and private ranges, as well as several juris- dictions of federally owned lands. The use of all these lands as one unit is only one problem to the operator, h»ut he faces different regulations and fee rates on ea<h different type of land. State lands are usually scattered. Furthermore, 426 most States are restricted by law in their manage- ment policies. Counties and States have acquired large areas through tax delinquencies, but the status of these lands is largely indeterminate. Sys- tematic management policies generally have not been evolved that would protect these lands while making them generally useful. The situation is especially difficult as between the policies and regulations of the two Federal agencies administering range lands. Requirements, seasons of use, and administrative practices differ so greatly that operators using lands administered by both agencies are often confused. In handling grazing districts, the Bureau of Land Management uses advisory boards of graziers to assist in preparing plans and to recommend management policies. Because of a lack of adequate technical personnel in the agency, much reliance is placed upon the recommendations of these boards in handling the range. In the Forest Service similar boards are truly advisory in nature. In that Service, empha- sis is placed on the family-sized operators who run stock on the national forests during the summer season. Grazing preferences in grazing districts are tied directly to the dependent base property that is commensurate for a given number of livestock and was used in connection with the Federal range preceding the establishment of the district. The grazing privilege is tied to the properties, large or small, and not to the operator or livestock as is the case on the national forests. Grazing permits on the national forests have an upper limit on numbers of stock but a permit may be issued to each of several members of a ranch- ing family. By contrast, the grazing privileges on the grazing districts are limited to one for the ranching operation regardless of size. Public management of range lands has not always recognized the fact that all range lands, no matter what their ownership, are complementary parts of a single range economy. Both the States and the Federal agencies have been unable to administer the public range in such a way that it fits best into and strengthens the basin economy. They have encouraged the economic family type operating units but have not in enough cases been able to prevent the use of the range resources becoming concentrated in the hands of a few. In other in- stances they have not met the problem of more small operations than the resource can support. Also, many public administrative procedures are |