people are experts in range; they have a vast pool of knowledge and personnel 

 that can help do this job. They should be out there doing it rather than 

 sitting in the office writing an Environmental Impact Statement that really 

 says nothing. 



We've come a long way but there's still room for futher improvement. 

 There's one thing I would like you to remember and that is that today's ran- 

 cher has a vital personal interest in maintaining this range at a high level 

 of production and his use can be compatable with the environment. This con- 

 cludes what I have to say. I hope you agree with most of it. If not, holler! 



Dave Smith (Panel Moderator). Thank you, Roy, for a very worthwhile 

 presentation and very interesting. We will for a few minutes field some 

 questions. 



I would like to ask why you prefer burning sage over spraying? 



First, burning is permitted and spraying is almost impossible. Burning 

 is cheaper and it does a good job of eliminating the plant and does not leave 

 any stumps. Also, it is more acceptable to those persons who are concerned 

 about spraying and its effects. It therefore, appears to be the most viable 

 alternative including economics. 



I want to echo Mr. Cornell's statements in the assumption that most 

 everyone has a management plan but there are many that do not have these. 

 We have in my area a imique situation where our range is divided between the 

 Department of Fish and Wildlife or the C. M. Russell and the Bureau of Land 

 Management. But we are told due to this impact statement that there will be 

 no future development on the range, for anywhere from 5-15-20 years. It seems 

 imperative that the BLM be allowed to maintain the range and start improving 

 the range instead of catering to "environmental groups" who do not know what 

 they are doing. 



What has been the change in carrying capacity or AUM's on the range and 

 what have been the changes in the AU's of livestock use and wildlife use - 

 where is the increase going? We've found much of the increase is going to 

 wildlife which doesn't do the stockman much good. 



I am sure Mitch would agree with me if I said that we were grazing at 

 least twice as much forage as before and we are leaving much more behind for 



68 



