59 



Possible Solutions; 



As stated previously, CCA believes that the current appeals regulations 

 inappropriately place the decision-maker in the dual role of appeals officer. That is, those 

 who are making decisions are also ruling on appeals of those same decisions. We believe 

 that appeals process developed by the Bureau of Land Management, which utilizes 

 administrative law judges, is much more appropriate. Permittees who face decisions which 

 significantly reduce or eliminate grazing must be entitled to due process. 



Secondly, we believe that while informal disposition hearings may serve a useful role, 

 this role is undermined when all parties to an appeals) are not present. Furthermore, by 

 the time an issue has reached the appeal stage, collaborative efforts may be too late. We 

 believe that these types of informal meetings are more appropriate prior to decision points. 



With respect to litigation involving the agency, the Equal Access to Justice Act creates 

 in equalities between preservation groups and those private individuals who provide on-the- 

 ground management of FS resources. In cases which are settled out of court, no legal fees 

 should be paid to any party to litigation. Alternatively, each party could be reimbursed at 

 the level of the least costly of the parties' legal fees as an incentive for settling cases prior 

 tc formal hearings. In those cases which are decided :n court favorable to the position 

 argued by permittees, the government should reimbursv the permittees' legal fees. 

 Conclusion; 



Again, the California Cattlemen's Association appreciates this opportunity to provide 

 Congress with a brief description of our experience with the U.S. Forest Service appeals 

 process. We believe that the current system withholds due process from grazing permittees 



lUEClSLAnLSFSAPPL TST 



