Page images
PDF
EPUB

it ran a green slime, the currants were eaten to the roots, and the tiny little fish only a memory.

We also love Italian Creek. We watched the gullies deepen, the meadows disappear and those fish are also only a memory. I enclose a picture of Italian Creek.* When I asked why there was gullies, I was told of heavy runoffs. But I have read history books about the meadows and willows there in the 1800's. I am sure there was heavy runoffs in the 1700's, the 1200's, even before Christ. So what was added to make the gullies? Domestic animals that overgraze taking out soil holding plants.

I can show you sites like this all over the State. Streams that once had fish processing factories that cannot support one fish now, along with dead meadows crowded with sagebrush.

Yet, ranchers tell us the land is in the best condition since 100 years. How do they determine that? I asked our State statistician and was told there was no money to send out impartial surveyors. So he gave out forms to ranchers and the cooperative extension gave out some forms. This unscientific approach says the land is better. Plus they count exotics like wheat grass. Wheat grass is ice cream for cows, but tofu for wildlife that have digestive enzymes only for the native plants.

S. 852 says cut out the landowner, put the renter of the forage in charge. Do not collect enough rent or any rent at all. Use it until it is permanently damaged. Stop the landowners that hunt, fish, ski, take photos, et cetera. They do not count, only the renters that provide 2 percent of the meat on our tables count.

We ask that you stop the unwise use of our public lands. We must start repairs now or lose the land. There is room for all users if we work as a team and are not selfish.

Please listen to the landowners. Do not lock us off the land. Do not deny access to our land by closing access roads. S. 852 would do this.

I invite you to visit Nevada, go camping with us and we will show you what we see when we look at the land. You will see minigrand canyons, tiny bunch grass hiding under the sagebrush for protection, tree lots with no baby trees, all eaten, dry meadows, polluted streams that used to have native cutthroat trout, sage hen leks with no sage hens as cows stepped on the nests and ate the vital forbs needed by the young. And I can even show you a few places that are improving because of good stewards. It can be done. In summary, we ask that you kill Š. 852 and let the West come back to life for us all.

In closing, I would like to go back to our furnished, unfurnished apartments. Our furnished apartment is owned by a private landlord. But you must remember that the unfurnished apartment is rented, not the walls, the ceilings and everything else in that apartment, but only a small portion of the carpet, the forage.

They also have bathroom privileges. In our rented fully equipped apartment, if that landlord sees the bathroom equipment damaged, hurt or he sees the carpet torn up down to the floorboards and big holes chopped in with an axe, he could say, "You are out of here."

*Retained in subcommittee files.

Please give us the same rights on our unfurnished apartment, the public lands. Thank you.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you.

Mr. Kroger.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD KROGER, NORTH DAKOTA CHAPTER OF THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

Mr. KROGER. Mr. Chairman, members of his subcommittee, I am here representing the North Dakota chapter of the Wildlife Society. We are an all volunteer organization composed of 350 natural resource professionals.

Our goal is to develop and promote sound stewardship of wildlife resources and the environments upon which wildlife and humans depend.

I would like for you to keep this thought in mind during our discussion: We believe that S. 852 will seriously impact the multiple use management which currently exists on our public lands.

S. 852 received the support of North Dakota's two Senators as result of inclusion of the title II Grasslands Amendment. Unfortunately, our group does not support this stand.

We believe that title II will reduce the public input into the management that currently exists on these lands and will provide more of a single-use management approach.

In the early 1930's, we are all aware of what led to the Bankhead-Jones Act occurring on these grasslands. They were in a tailspin as a result of the erosion from grazing and poor farming practices.

With passage of the Bankhead-Jones Act, many of these lands came back under Federal ownership and the process was begun that leads to their condition today, which is much improved.

It took nearly 60 years to get to where we are at today and millions of dollars. This occurred because the Bankhead-Jones Act recognized the need for a land ethic and also for multiple-use management of these lands.

As a result, traditional users of the land have increased. In Little Missouri National Grasslands in North Dakota, hunters alone spend over $40 million annually in pursuing game in the Little Missouri National Grasslands.

Our Sheyenne and Little Missouri National Grasslands in North Dakota comprise one third of the grasslands in the Nation. They also represent the largest tracts of public land that we have in North Dakota.

In all the grassland support, literally hundreds of species of animals and plants, there are 40 that are considered threatened or sensitive that exist on these lands, including Big Horn sheep, prairie chicken, prairie fringed orchids and others.

The Sheyenne National Grasslands also represent the largest block of tall grass prairie that exists in the Northern Great Plains. They are truly a national treasure. The title II amendment will effectively in our view turn over all management decisions of these grasslands to the holders of grazing permits.

These grazing permittees constitute less than three-tenths of 1 percent of the citizens of North Dakota. In a recent public opinion poll, 86 percent of the North Dakotans favored retaining Forest

Service management of these lands and opposing congressional intervention.

Senators, I can say that this amendment is very contrary to the wishes of North Dakotans. We as an organization recognize that properly managed grazing is a unique part of our multiple use management equation.

However, a legal review of this amendment and S. 852 has determined that if passed, it would severely affect land management planning, public input, wildlife diversity, riparian area protection and a number of other public benefits.

We urge that this committee remove the grasslands amendment from the S. 852 and that they work at the local level that has already been mentioned to resolve any concerns that ranchers and others have with the grasslands to solve the issues administratively rather than going through a system that could totally change our existing multiple use management as recognized by the public. We do not want these public lands to be held hostage by a few at the expense of many. With that, I will close my statement. Thank you very much for your time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kroger follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF Richard KROGER, NORTH DAKOTA CHAPTER OF THE

WILDLIFE SOCIETY

Good morning Chairman Craig and subcommittee members. My name is Richard Kroger, I'm here on behalf of the North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society. We are an all volunteer organization in North Dakota comprised of over 350 natural resource professionals. The goal of the group is "to develop and promote sound stewardship of wildlife resources and the environments upon which wildlife and humans depend".

I would like you to keep this thought in mind during our discussion: This bill will negatively impact multiple use of public lands.

Senate Bill 852 has the support of North Dakota's two Senators. It does not have the support of our organization. We have been told they supported the bill in order to attach the title II Grassland Amendment. Unfortunately, the Grassland Amendment will squelch public input, and shift emphasis to one use-livestock grazing. In the early 1930's, the local economy was in a tailspin. There were simply too many farmers and ranchers on the land trying to make a living. The land was overgrazed and blowing away. Poor agricultural management practices of these fragile grasslands had proven to be disastrous. With public assistance came the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937. This Act corrected maladjustments in the land use and reduced grazing pressure on about 4 million acres in 12 states. It has taken nearly 60 years, and millions of dollars in federal subsidies, to correct the damage done to the land prior to 1937. The Bankhead-Jones Act recognized the need for a land ethic and multiple uses that these grasslands could provide to the American public. Many traditional user groups come to our Grasslands each year. These user groups contribute tens of millions of dollars annually to the local economy. Hunters alone spend over 40 million dollars annually in the Little Missouri National Grasslands.

Our Sheyenne and Little Missouri National Grasslands in North Dakota comprise approximately one-third of the National Grasslands and are the largest blocks of a public land in North Dakota. Many species in North Dakota depend on the Grasslands for their survival. In all, the Grasslands support over 40 threatened and sensitive species of plants and animals, including the bighorn sheep, golden eagle, prairie chicken, and western prairie fringed orchid. The Sheyenne National Grasslands are the largest block of tallgrass prairie remaining in the Northern Great Plains. They are truly a national treasure.

This amendment will effectively turn over all management decisions of the Grasslands to those holding grazing permits. These permittees make up less than 3/10 of one percent of North Dakota's citizens. In a recent public opinion poll conducted in North Dakota, 86 percent of the respondents requested the Forest Service continue managing the Grasslands using current regulations, and that Congress not in

tervene. Senators, this amendment is contrary to the demands of the vast majority of North Dakotans.

A legal review of this amendment and Senate Bill 852 has determined that, if passed, this bill and amendment would severely impact: planning, public participation, wilderness and roadless areas, outputs such as permits, suitability of use designations, wildlife diversity, riparian area protection, recreation, off-road vehicle use and many other public benefits. We recognize that grazing, when properly managed, is a part of the multiple use equation.

The amendment sponsored by Senators Dorgan and Conrad states that "the inclusion of National Grasslands within the National Forest Service System constrains the Secretary of Agriculture in managing the National Grasslands as intended under the Bankhead-Jones Tenant Act." The North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society disagrees with this premise and we have repeatedly asked for specific cases where current regulations hamper proper management of grasslands. În meetings with Senator Dorgan and his staff, we have stated that we would be willing to work closely with the interested parties to examine specific rules and regulations that may need refining or revision. However, neither the Senator or his staff have provided us with any specifics on how the Secretary is constrained or how current management under the Forest System is preventing proper management or impeding grazing.

It has been said that the problems experienced by ranchers are the result of grasslands being managed by people with expertise in managing trees. We have heard repeatedly that Forest Service personnel don't have the needed background, education, or experience to properly manage grasslands. These statements are incorrect and misleading. For example, the four grassland districts in the Custer National Forest are headed by District Rangers with degrees in range science. The grasslands are being managed by individuals whose education and experience contributes to balanced management strategies for wildlife, water quality, soil protection, riparian habitat protection, and proper grazing. Simply stated, we don't have tree experts managing grasslands.

It has also been said that the intent in introducing this amendment is to maintain environmental protection for the grasslands but remove the burdensome regulations. Unfortunately for the continued integrity of the grasslands, this amendment would result in loss of protection. Removal of the grasslands from the Forest System by amending the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 would effectively eliminate protection of these public lands. Under this amendment, public participation in determining uses of the grasslands would be severely curtailed and grazing would become the priority use. Wildlife habitat and the importance of these habitats to wildlife populations are equally important characteristics of the grasslands and deserve equal protection.

The environmental rules and regulations administered by the Forest Service have been called burdensome. However, these same rules and regulations protect the grasslands for all users, including those who have permits for grazing. Past experience has shown that improper management, in the absence of any regulations, resulted in economic hardship and degradation of the grasslands. The BankheadJones Act and the Forest System rules and regulations were set up to provide well managed, sustainable grassland systems. Despite the statements by special interests that environmental regulations are overly burdensome, we fail to see any indications that this is true. If there are specific instances where existing rules and regulations need to be refined, this can be done administratively without summarily removing all protection. This amendment removes all environmental protection for the grasslands that currently exist under the Forest System. Clearly, this is not what North Dakota citizens and the American public want for our valuable grasslands.

We urge the subcommittee to remove the Grasslands Amendment from Senate Bill 852 and work with all of the interested parties to address management concerns on the grassland. Although this legislation may directly benefit public land grazers, it is unacceptable to the vast majority of North Dakotans and the American public. This legislation is in stark contrast to the principles of multiple use management. If this bill and amendment is passed, public land will be held hostage by a few at the expense of many.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, sir.

Dr. Perkins.

STATEMENT OF DR. DEXTER PERKINS, PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA, DACOTAH CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB

Dr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Dexter Perkins. I am a professor or geology at the University of North Dakota and share the Agassoz Basom Group with the Sierra Club. I come here today to speak to you because I care greatly about the future of National Grasslands, and in particular the Little Missouri National Grasslands of North Dakota. My comments will mostly be confined to title II of S. 852, but let me state at the outset that we find problems with many other parts of the bill as well.

In October 1987, I was here testifying about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I am honored to be back again.

The System of National Grasslands, and particularly those in North Dakota are lands of many uses. Hunters, grazers, hikers, oil companies, tourists, wildlife enthusiasts and many others, all of them have different interests in these public lands. The different uses, with perhaps the exception of oil and gas development, are for the most part sympathetic. They go well together. A balance has been established, a balance which gives each group most of what it wants.

The major concern of the Sierra Club, along with many other citizens of North Dakota has been the excessive levels of oil development on the Little Missouri National Grasslands.

I want to emphasize that we have only minor disagreements with livestock operators, who we believe for the most part are compatible with our goals.

The impact of S. 852 on wildlife, recreational opportunities, and access to our public lands, however, is all too great for the Sierra Club to remain silent. Mr. Chairman, if title II as it is now written is enacted into law, livestock grazing will be elevated over all other uses of the Grasslands. Managing agencies will be directed by law to augment grazing at the expense of other users. The delicate balance between the users will be destroyed.

And let us make the record absolutely clear on this: Livestock operators are only one of many users of the Grasslands. There are about 400 grazing association members of Little Missouri National Grassland.

The number of permittees are less than that. And in the North Dakota chapter of the Sierra Club alone, we have 21⁄2 times that number of members who visit the Grasslands for recreation.

The number of hunters who visit each year is much larger. The number of tourists who drive through dwarf even the hunting numbers.

Mr. Chairman, the Sierra Club is opposed to any legislation that gives livestock operators any higher status than the other user groups.

When I testified about the oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I argued that oil and gas should be excluded from the refuge. Today, I am not arguing for the exclusion of anything. Grazing, if conducted in an appropriate way is a valuable management tool on our grasslands. What I am saying is that existent grazing guidelines and regulations need to be kept in

« PreviousContinue »