David Skaggs: “we should not pass this bill. In fact, we should not be considering it at all. Bringing this bill forward is not a step…”

“we should not pass this bill. In fact, we should not be considering it at all. Bringing this bill forward is not a step toward better management of the public lands or even toward greater certainty for ranchers who graze livestock on those lands. Instead, it merely revives old quarrels. It threatens to undermine important gains achieved through the hard work of consultation, cooperation, and census-building by suggesting that it may be possible to return to an earlier, less inclusive approach to land management. For example, to debate this bill means reviving the old quarrel about grazing fees, especially since the bill's fee formula seems to have been developed without very extensive consultations and brought forward with only the sketchiest of explanations or justifications. To take just one example, neither of the two committee reports on this bill explain the basis for redefining the term ``animal unit month'' with respect to sheep and goats, even though the effect is to dramatically increase the amount of forage that can be purchased for the same fee. I would like to know why we're being asked to decide that sheep and goats actually eat less each month than we used to think. I'm sure this part of the bill, and the other questions about fees, will be debated at length, as indeed they should be.”