allow livestock to utilize the range. These support 

 facilities on today's market cost between $9 and $10 

 on the average for every cow grazing one month on 

 the public rangelands as shown by University of 

 Nevada studies Added to this cost is a current $1 86 

 grazing fee paid to the federal government, bringing 

 the total cost to the rancher for grazing one cow for 

 one month on the public rangelands to over $11, 

 higher than the typical cost of private pasture 



The major portion of the money expended by the 

 rancher to support his ranch operation, excluding the 

 grazing fee paid to the federal government, is spent 

 locally It pays for food, wages, insurance, parts, 

 equipment, etc. Depending on the multiplier effect for 

 the given region the economic impact of that one cow 

 grazing for one month is between $70 and $135 Car- 

 ried beyond the regional level to the national level the 

 economic impact multiplies. Multiplying the number of 

 months livestock utilize public lands and subsequently 

 multiplying by the economic impact of each animal, 

 demonstrates the multi-billion dollar contribution live- 

 stock grazing makes to the nation's economy. 



Thus far we have referenced two main points: (1) 

 livestock grazing on our public rangelands is energy 

 efficient and (2) livestock grazing on our public lands 

 contributes to our nation's economy. 



Let us look briefly at the future of this industry. 

 Decisions in the next 10 years will largely determine 

 whether we maximize the efficiency of production on 

 these lands or whether one of our most promising 

 resources becomes an economic liability 



"Decisions in the next 10 years will 

 largely determine whether we maxi- 

 mize the efficiency of production on 

 these lands or whether one of our most 

 promising resources becomes an 

 economic liability. " 



For a century a three-way struggle has continued 

 for control of the vast public lands. States have 

 argued they should have control of the lands within 

 their borders. Commercial interests claim established 

 rights and argue for control. Federal government land 

 management agencies maintain that states and private 

 interests are not capable of wise management. 



So strong has the federal lobby for retention of 

 these lands been that over the last 100 years there 



46 



has been a complete turn-around from the original 

 laws that favored distribution of the lands into private 

 and state ownership to perpetual retention of these 

 lands and acquisition of new lands where possible 



This has created huge and growing problems for 

 the West's livestock industry. From the 1880's the 

 General Land Office effectively lobbied to prevent for- 

 mal property rights being transferred to the range 

 user. Attempts by ranchers to develop separate 

 fenced ranges to enhance management and protect 

 the resource base was opposed by the Forest Service 

 and by the General Land Office. The Forest Service 

 later agreed to support separate ranges among 

 ranchers in return for rancher support for the transfer 

 of the Forest Service from the Interior Department to 

 the US. Department of Agriculture. Federal agencies 

 feared that the development of efficient separate 

 ranges among ranches would establish a property 

 right interest in that range and eventually lead to the 

 end of the federal land management agencies. 



Ironically, the states did own the non-navigable 

 water arising within their borders Ranchers in turn 

 could obtain ownership of the water by proving benefi- 

 cial use for livestock or irrigation purposes. A stand- 

 off, so to speak, was reached. The states and 

 private interests controlled the range by virtue of the 

 fact they controlled the water. Range without water is 

 of little value. The federal government land manage- 

 ment agencies also recognized the significance of the 

 fact and have worked diligently in recent years to leg- 

 islate and regulate their way around this impasse. 



The 1960's brought an array of legislation to 

 strengthen the federal hold on the public lands, each 

 bill effectively decreasing the efficiency of forage pro- 

 duction through increased regulatory cost. Some of 

 these major pieces of legislation were the Multiple Use 

 Act, the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act. and 

 the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

 (FLPMA) 



The Multiple Use Act adversely affected the public 

 lands rancher by attempting to equate nonmarket 

 uses of the public lands with market uses such as 

 grazing, a concept which has since been proven 

 invalid. A nonmarket use such as recreation cannot 

 be valued in the strict sense. Its worth can be deter- 

 mined through a replacement cost approach. 

 Attempts to place nonmarket uses of the land on par 

 with market uses has placed costly regulatory pres- 

 sure on the rancher who often encounters major dis- 

 ruptions of his operation by favoring the nonmarket 

 use Wise management can in most cases accommo- 

 date both uses. 



