STATEMENTS OF JIM MAGAGNA, PAST-PRESIDENT, PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL; DAVE HOOK, DIRECTOR/LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, UNITED FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE ASSOCIATIONS OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA; AND GEORGE EARLY, BLM LANDS FOUNDATION Mr. VENTO. I don't know that the director is on his way or still in the Senate, but we are pleased to welcome the last panel. Jim Magagna, with Public Lands Council; Dave Hook, United FourWheel Drive Association; and George Early with the BLM Lands Foundation. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, before you came, I welcomed Mr. Magagna. He is a constituent from Wyoming and I represent Mr. Magagna. STATEMENT OF JIM MAGAGNA Mr. MAGAGNA. Thank you. It is a pleasure, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Thomas, to be here and represent 31,000 American families whose lives are dependent on and dedicated to making the public/private partnership of Federal lands work for livestock production. Allow me to begin by talking about the concept that I see embodied throughout much of the language of H.R. 1603. And I, quite frankly, have to view it as a further attack and a rather direct one in many ways on the continued application of the concept of multiple use sustained yield to the management of Interior Department and BLM lands. It is not that I am fearful of a discussion of multiple use. It has been the guiding principle for quite a number of years and perhaps open public discussion is timely at this point in time. I would welcome it because I have every confidence that, if knowledgeable parties get together to talk about the best way to manage the vast majority of this broad array of public lands with all of its resources that are under BLM jurisdiction, we will once again conclude that multiple use best meets the needs of the resource and the needs of the public who are dependent upon those resources. But I think that is a debate that should be conducted in a public forum and the guiding principle for management of these lands should not be changed piecemeal by the addition of some of these specific-use and singular-use concepts that are furthered in H.R. 1603. With all deference, Mr. Chairman, I have to look at this and see written throughout it the threads of input from people who do not live or understand the west and are trying to dictate to those of us who do live out there how we should live our lives. True, grazing is not even mentioned in this particular piece of legislation, but I think the impacts upon grazing are apparent throughout the legislation when we talk about each of the various restrictions on the use of different portions of BLM administered lands that could be put into place as a result of passage of H.R. 1603. Let me get on to some of those specifics, if I might. Some have been addressed earlier but I think merit some repetition. One is the concept of buffer zones. When you see language like "likely to be affected by the use of," this simply is reference to lands that in and of themselves may not have the criteria necessary to be declared areas of critical environmental concern, but that may be so declared under the language of this bill if they are likely to have an impact on other areas that are of singular-use designation. Again, let me repeat one more issue that I believe has been addressed by Ms. Brooks, and that is the reference to the fish and wildlife population, but I would like to take this a step further than she did. It does raise a red flag about the relationship between the state fish and game agencies and their role in fish and wildlife management, but it raises another vastly more important issue. I might go back and refer to the concept of ecosystem management. Every time that comes up, we hear considerable discussion about the fact that administrative boundaries between various government agencies cannot be applied, but ecosystems go beyond single administrative units. I think when we talk about the administration, the key unit is the relationship between public lands and private lands. That is the real administrative issue. If we are going to talk about ecosystem management or wildlife populations, we have to be aware of the fact that neither of these types of management can take place, quote, on the public lands. They simply expand beyond the public lands to the intermingled private lands. Frankly, one of the frustrations that I have trying to deal with Federal land management issues is the seeming inability of so many people to comprehend that you can talk about the resource and habitat in terms of Federal lands, but you cannot talk about the uses of the resource, particularly the wildlife uses, many of the recreational type uses, the aesthetic use of those lands, the grazing use of those lands, in terms of Federal lands. You have to talk about them with an understanding of the intermingled land patterns that prevail throughout the west. Of particular concern, in addition to the expanded definition of ACEC, is the regulatory requirements that an opportunity be provided for members of the public to propose specific areas for consideration for designation. When you combine this with the expanded definition, I believe you have literally set the stage for nearly all areas to be at least nominated for ACEC designation, because when you look at the long list of characteristics that can qualify an area "special" and you allow each of us as individuals to look at those from the perspective of what is special to us, you virtually have incorporated the opportunity for all BLM-administered lands to be proposed for such a designation. Let me again reemphasize the problem with the concept of natural productive capacity, or biodiversity. Again, there is not a single natural productive capacity that can be spelled out and defined for an individual piece of public land. We have to bring into this concept some notion of what we, the public, the people that are concerned with that land, desire to see that land produce because a given piece of land has the potential for a great diversity of productive capacities. We have to define what that capacity is with some relationship to what we hope to achieve through the utilization of that land, and under current management concepts, through some relationship to the concept of multiple use. Simply in a summarization of what we have in here, we already have wilderness area, we have ACECs expanded in this legislation, we have national conservation areas, we have CSUS. You add all of this together and it really provides the opportunity, if not the likelihood, of single-designated use for the vast majority of the public lands administered by the BLM. Up until this date, we have operated on the concept that they were out there under the multiple-use concept unless designated for a specific use. It seems to me that we are moving toward the point where they will be designated for a specific use and very little will be left for multiple use. And without being too direct, if I may use the language that was used by an earlier panel member today, under that approach, it is difficult to imagine any significant livestock grazing remaining on the Federal land. Mr. Chairman, I plead to you in closing that if there is going to be such a serious redirection of the mission of the Bureau of Land Management and the management of these lands, that it not be done in the name of reauthorization, that it be done through open, public debate, through open debate in these halls of Congress as to what the proper administration of these lands should be. The western livestock industry is, to a degree, unheard of today, a partnership throughout the west with many other users of the public land including members of the environmental community in coalition involving local government as well, that are committed to enhance the ability of these lands to meet the multiple-use mandate. Rather than redirect the BLM to become an obstacle to that, I would invite you and the members of this committee to join in this partnership by maintaining BLM's flexibility in this reauthorization bill to support these local efforts to bring true multiple-use stewardship and enhancement to these Federal lands. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Magagna follows:] TESTIMONY on behalf of THE PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL in regard to Bureau of Land Management Reauthorization submitted to The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the House Natural Resources Committee by Jim Magagna Public Lands Council May 25, 1993 The Public Lands Council represents the 31,000 western ranchers who graze cattle and sheep on federal lands in the 14 western states, and coordinates the public land policies of the National Cattlemen's Association, American Sheep Industry Association and the Association of National Mr. Chairman, I consider it to be an honor to have the opportunity to participate today in a discussion that is of great importance to not only the western livestock industry, but the economies and lives of those in the rural West. I am Jim Magagna, a Wyoming rancher, and Immediate Past-President of the American Sheep Industry Association and Past-President of the Public Lands Council. I am testifying today on behalf of the Public Lands Council. The Public Lands Council represents 36 affiliate organizations in the 14 western states and the American Sheep Industry Association, Association of National Grasslands and the National Cattlemen's Association. The Public Lands Council represents the 31,000 American families who have their lives invested in and dependent on the public/private partnership of federal lands livestock production. This public/private partnership provides the foundation to manage successfully the complex assets of mixed ownership as a single unit to achieve common goals that include responsible, managed production from renewable resources, while maintaining and improving the provisions of Mother Nature. Many components of H.R. 1603 would severely curtail one's ability to manage the resource consistent with the multiple use and sustained yield mandates of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). HR 1603 aids a movement that aims to do away with commodity production in the West. Those who advocate many of the destructive elements of H.R. 1603 are perfect examples of people who do not live in or understand the West and are trying to dictate to those who do how we should live our lives. Although these individuals may be well-intentioned, they clearly do not comprehend - or choose not to comprehend - the economy of the rural West and that federal lands cannot be viewed and dealt with in a vacuum. Mr. Chairman, the federal lands in the West are concretely tied with the local economies and livelihoods of those who live and work in our western communities. Under H.R. 1603, the multiple use mandate of FLPMA would be abandoned. Rather than emphasizing broad multiple use and sustained yield principles, this bill would give unjustified preference to a small handful of selected resources on the federal lands. If this is permitted, the fragile spending practices on recreational pursuits would replace the extensive array of multiple |