Oh, youbetcha.
Run those fuel prices up. Make commodities not only expensive, but let's get them overseas from someone ELSE's back yard. Let's toss more money at parkies even if visitation and stuff for them to do to earn their keep seems to be petering out. Make the entire West a de-facto Class 1 'viewshed." Oh yessssss, Raul would be PERFECT as the real, historical West's final assassin.
Grijalva also subscribes to, and sponsored a bill for, "buyouts" of grazing rights and retirement of same. Or maybe it was some kind of high bid, so an eco-group could score a directed grant and bid far beyond the economic worth of a grazing right. Sure. That's been radical Dave Foreman et al's wet dream for a long time. So that's all we need is another nut case bent on wrecking ranchers with public-lands rights.
What the heck, only a 95 percent LCV rating...when Bruce Babbitt of course RAN LCV. So that makes Raul more "moderate."
This really has me wondering...New West really isn't an appropriate name for this operation. Blue West (it should be Red but the graphics people decided to go against years of practice because the political reality was too obvious) would be a more appropriate name for this organization.

Actually, grazing buyouts are the free market at its finest. Keeping subsidized grazing in place, when it's a lose-lose situation for the budget and the environment, would seem to be socialism at its finest.

Kudos to Rep. Grijalva for supporting a plan that would put fish and wildlife first on our public lands. Grijalva is well-liked, knows the Washington scene, and would be a fantastic choice for DOI.

Dave, what is wrong with buying out grazing rights? Isn't that the free market at work?

Voluntary grazing *permit* buy-outs (there's no such thing as a grazing "right" on public land) were supported by individual family ranchers in Arizona when Grijalva sponsored the legislation. They were opposed by livestock associations and their politicians. That's because livestock associations get their fees from ranchers, and politicians from those special interest groups - they don't get fees when ranchers voluntarily sell their permits back. That livestock associations have smeared the buy-outs is testimony to the associations' and politicians' self-interest - not the interest of the individual ranchers who no longer have the voluntary option.

The voluntary grazing buy-outs are a great illustration of Grijalva's deep knowledge of Western issues. That he would sponsor such legislation finding a way to promote the interest of the environment while also promoting the interest of individual ranchers - cutting out the special interest livestock associations who would rather hold ranchers in a hard place as pawns in their effort to keep control of western issues and landscapes - is testimony to his integrity and ability to come up with win-win solutions that solve problems and make everyone happy - except for the self-interested associations and their politicians. That the legislation didn't pass is indicative of the extent to which those interests held power, but it does not diminish the remarkable feat of finding such a solution that serves (almost) everyone involved given such a deeply controversial issue.

Raul Grijalva is a good man, a man that has held strong to his responsibility to advance the public interest. His record is impeccable when it comes to natural resource issues in the West and there is not a better candidate for Secretary of the Interior. I'll be crossing my fingers with Bill.

Lets keep as many democratic congressmen as possible.
I think we should shove a few laws down their throats instead of just a bunch of executive orders...

Many thanks, Bill. I was glad to see your take on Grijalva, and to get the benefit of others' comments here.

I swear, every time I read a story that makes good conservation sense--you know, articles that talk about the long-term value of the West's public lands, for instance, Dave Skinner feels obliged to unzip his fly and soil every one of them with swift-boat-style propaganda... does anybody take this guy seriously? I know I don't... unbelievable.

Grijalva has a proven Western conservation ethic and would be a stolid supporter of keeping public lands in public hands and holding those who would permanently trash irreplacable habitat accountable. After eight years of industrial free passes, we need a voice in Interior who will represent the vast majority of us who would to see some responsibility accompany the development of our public lands.

My first--and last--post on New West. Hopefully, it's more credible than some, particularly those who can't seem to refrain from badmouthing anyone with the stones to disagree...

Ranchers pay dollars per animal for grazing rights and the federal lands are closely watched to prevent over grazing.
We have lived, hunted, worked and played in those places where both abundant wildlife and cattle have access to, so the belief of the cattle taking over is a bunch of hogwash put out by environmentalists. I am for multiple use. Yes it was abused at one time, but no longer is it and as for the land being locked up, "OUR LAND", NOT THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS LAND, NOT THE GOV'T, AS WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE EMPLOYERS AND THE GOVERNMENT IS THE SERVANTS, EVEN THE PRESIDENT....which many don't seem to realize. As a past Civil Service person for many years this I can tell you is FACT....
There would be no bail out of the big car companies if the environmentalists and Congress would allow oil drilling in a safe way plus gas, plus coal in a clean way we would not be where we are now. Our National Forests are burning up and the environementalists file suit not to allow the burn timber to be logged. Now the beetle has taken over and is killing whole live forests, nice huh. Think there should be some cleaning up, again jobs would be had if the timber industry hadn't been taken out by the environmentalists. We called them "90 day wonders" in our day as they knew nothing but what their PHD or Degree afforded them. They had very little hands on experience. Things were kept clean in our day. Now its blamed on global warming which is another lie, when the ice cores extracted in the antartica tells a different story. The earth runs in cycles and man is to blame for one tenth of one percent of the problem. Way back thousand years or so there wasn't cars etc. to cause the warming or the cooling.
I know I will be jumped on for this, but I have lived a long time, both in the cities entertaining VIPs and in the Woods, both Wilderness areas and otherwise, and have seen a lot plus I have Great Grandchildren and I lived in this great state of Montana as its my home, except when I was transferred to different states and to cities. I am not wet behind the ears in other words and have paid my dues.

Grijalva sounds like he would be a breath of fresh, clean air to me.

Hey skinner and cindy,

The people voted....time for change!!

if you don't like it go crawl back under the rocks you came from!!

Well Cindy and Dave, move over, here's another voice crying in the wilderness. Bill is crying in another thread because he has to pay something himself to use the forests. The price will only go up Bill, if you manage to eliminate another paying customer! You can pat your selves on the back when your permit to use the land costs another $80 on top of what you pay now because the "subsidized" ranchers are no longer paying to graze their cows. Talk about slow learners!
Eliminate the rancher's ability to run enough cows to make a living, and they will sell their private property to a developer or for a trophy property because they can no longer make a living. Then the beef eating enviros can get their beef from China with a little melamine sprinkled in to flavor it a little.

Marion,

Actually, public lands livestock ranching is a significant net loss for land managers - it takes a lot more money to administer livestock allotments on public lands then the grazing fees (valued woefully below market & even most state grazing fees) contribute to the land managers budgets. The number is between $128 - 500 million net loss to our public agencies annually - depending on how many of the externality costs that tax-payers pick up you figure into the accounting. These dollars go into predator abatement, exotic weed abatement, fencing, water-developments, road-blading that would otherwise not be necessary, monitoring, vegetation manipulations - including prolific landscape-scale seeding of non-native plants that do not support wildlife - big game or not, compliance with exiting regulation to ensure the minimal regard for public interest that exists, etc. All of these things would not be necessary except for the antiquated idea that it is appropriate to force livestock grazing on landscapes that would otherwise not sustain the activity without such manipulation of the environment.

Additionally, the fees that public land livestock grazers do pay do not supplement the general budget in such a way that would offset fees associated with recreational use - they are used exclusively for "range improvements" - most of which degrade the water sources, landscape and wildlife habitat. Ex: water developments, fencing, herbicide application etc. and as mentioned, the cost associated with such management is still a huge net loss on the budget - it doesn't pay for itself, all of us pay with tax dollars.

So the truth is, if we had back the $128 - $500 million net loss that we all pay in taxes which currently goes to administer the commercial production of livestock on public land for a few private politically connected individuals, and instead applied those dollars we contribute toward administration of recreation and other activities that all American's would be able to enjoy (we paid for it, right ?), we'd be more likely to avoid the financial pressure to pay for recreational access to public lands as now exists - not the other way around.

To bring it back to topic - this is another reason that Raul Grijalva is the responsible choice for DOI. Raul gets that the budgets at Interior are woefully contrived and way off balance. He has questioned the tax-dollar sink that are the irresponsibly below-market grazing fees - fees which are lower now than in several decades past. It's also why his sponsorship of win-win solutions that work for ranchers - at ranchers' discretion - allowing them to opt out of their permits also works for the environment and the budget - the voluntary buy-outs pay for themselves - over time - in recovered administration & avoided development costs. This is the kind of fiscal responsibility that we need at Interior - and last I checked, Obama promised to go budget by budget in his administration cutting away the wasteful expenditures - Grijalva's got a track record of doing just that.

And Marion, in response to your "cows or condos" argument - respectfully, this is a tired argument having little to do with the kind of understanding of economics. Livestock associations - and their politicians - have been extorting wasteful subsidies with this threat for a long time - it just doesn't pencil out.

The truth - as I understand it - is that many livestock ranchers on public lands that are in a financial pinch are in such a pinch because they've taken loans out on their assets to keep their operations going in times of sky high fuel prices, private feed prices, and other mounting economic pressures. Many of the loans are taken out on public land grazing permits (that loans are allowed to be taken against permits of public assets is irresponsible as well) and the banks that issue such loans do so in amounts set by stocking rates, incentivizing ranchers to keep as many cattle on the range as possible to secure payment on those loans. Public lands ranchers are between a rock and a hard place, the number of cattle they need to square with the banks is too many to meet environmental objectives demanded by regulators. The pressure mounts that they'll default - and be forced to sell their private property, and it's associated allotment to square the loan.

This is another reason why the mantra against voluntary buy-outs, stoked by large corporate livestock ranchers, their associations and their politicians, are such a betrayal of the small rancher. Voluntary buy-outs would afford individual ranchers the opportunity to get out from under such debt and actually hold their base/private properties to pass on to their kids - rather than selling out to developers, to larger ranchers (ex: Simplot) etc. Kids are splitting up and selling ranches quick - one contributing factor is the insurmountable debt - even if they wanted to hold on to the property, they don't have any other choice. Voluntary buy-outs give ranching families the option of paying down that debt and passing on a property that their kids might want to - might be able to - keep in the family. They at least give ranchers now the dignity of making it easier for their kids to make that choice.

Grijalva's a leader in crafting and promoting these opportunities, these solutions, amidst the political quagmire of the issues involved. Ranchers, environmentalists, and the public in general deserve that kind of leadership right now.

Sorry for the lengthy reply.
Still crossing my fingers.

Brian Ertz

Brian, that was the same BS that was put out about the timber industry. You got rid of it pretty much and lo and behold now the recreation users have to replace the money that is no longer coming in. Get rid of the ranchers and you will have to make that up to. Simple arithmetic, either that or you are going to ask thsoe who pay taxes but do not use forest to pay it for you.
I helped my uncle with his paper work when he got into his 90s on his ranch and NFS sent him a bill every year and he sent them a check, that was their involvement other than going to deposit it in the bank.
He maintained his own fences, built watering places where rocks got into springs, cleaned creeks out, sprayed any weeds that showed up, etc. And yes he did it himself as long as he lived.

Amazing early turkey, there, Brian.
The reason grazing permits are so expensive to administer is because of environmental litigation and opposition to permits. So you need a kajillion "ologists" to sign off on piles of paper in order to allow long-standing activities to take place.
That's part of why FORESTRY is also a nonstarter on public ground. Not because it lacks merit or is inherently unprofitable, but because the administrative overhead forced by dumb laws exploited by slightly smarter radical lawyers has rendered forestry a loser.
As for buyouts, I forgot to mention that Raul's buyout bill was to be funded by Uncle, not the enviro groups wanting to retire the leases. Yes, the same enviro groups that, if they had any pull, could easily raise the funds to buy the ranches and rights they desire. But why bother to do that when a gullible Uncle Congress will get Auntie Taxpayer to shell out?

Bill; Your refreshing insights and support for Mr. Grijalva are timely. Eschew obfuscation and shoot straight. I don't know what west your critics have been living in over last 50 years but the days of subsidized AUM's are gone with the passing of the 20th century. The rising fire winds, the exotic species that follow our plows, and ever deepening aquifers and arroyos are our 21st century realities. Mr. Grijalva understands these issues, the land grant legacies of the southwest and the traditional water rights from the acequias. Water rights shall be the rising political issue of the west in an inverse proportion to the water levels from watersheds. Timber once subsidized the other land management programs, including grazing along with recreation. Beefy taxes on downstream users of water from government lands makes more sense than any alternatives I've heard, or read, to date. Every user of federal lands need to fork over a just share for their particular preferential privileges. I think Mr. Grijalva would be more apt to slant this way than the other names floating about.

Uh, Mr. Clark I believe the timber industry was kicked out because they were supposedly subsidized too heavily. Of course ranchers are tarred with the same brush. The fact is recreation was subsidized by the paying users. When the ranchers are gone, who is going to pay??????????????????

If you really want to help preserve the family farm, lobby to eliminate inheritance taxes on them. Unfortunatley, those I know who inherit must sell just to pay the taxes on their inheritance.

It would be poetic justice to see the cattle industry going the same way as the woods product industry.

What Brian has written is nothing but rhetoric that is put out by the environmentalists. He makes the whole expenditure seems to be on the shoulders of the grazing permits, when in reality much of the rhetoric is just wind. Roads, which mostly are gated, kelly humped, or tank trapped, do not need maintenance. The existing roads are all season roads that need general maintenance anyhow so it is figured in the budget each year for that department. As for weed control, yes I have seen trucks spraying the sides of roads, also seeding sides of roads. I do see rigs running up and down the various roads at times. I have yet to see a government employee building fence, watering tanks, cleaning out plugged streams, etc. and as for predator control there is no need where cattle are concerned. Now if you want to know the real expense for all the federal departments, such as the Forest Service,. try the legal end of the spectrum. How much of the budgets are going to the ACLU lawyers who file lawsuits for different environmental groups against the Feds because of grizzly bears, wolves, and I suppose some rare plant or something else they can find in the Endangered Species Act. You will find that there is a lot of tax payer’s money lining their pockets. That is yours and my money, folks. These lawsuits are causing much of the employment problems now days along with the high prices on items we all use, lumber from Canada for example.

Your property taxes are going to rise if you live where timber, mining, etc. have been in the past after the closing of sawmills, mines putting people out of work. The funds from the taxes the companies and timber receipts from logging went to support schools, roads and fundamental needs of the community. Now you are going to have to foot the bill of the communities needs and take over the full amount. Many communities cannot make up that much money as employment also is gone because the jobs, logging, mining etc. no longer exist. Schools, police forces and other agencies will be cut back. I honestly do not believe this country would not be in the situation it is now if we could have been able to use our own natural resources, both the renewable and the minerals. Had we done the research for more environmental ways to use coal, oil, and gas plus building the refineries and if we were more friendly tax and wage wise to other manufactures which left this country. Most of this knowledge is now available to the developers and can be done without hurting the wildlife and environment yet the liberals are against it.

The courts are administrating the laws and not the people. This is not the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be. We need to go back to the Constitution where “We the People” are the ones who make the laws. We need to get out from under the 9th District Supreme Court in Southern California and establish a new District that covers the North Western States in order to have the correct justice and not the justice from those who are ignorant of the country, the people, and the conditions here. Our Senators and Congressman have been working on this for years but Wash. D.C. is deaf to the concerns of the people and they should be the vary ones who are sensitive to their BOSSES!

Cindy, you really nailed it. The only thing I could add are the court awarded expenses that judges are so freely handing out are adding greatly to the drain on the economy of the United States of America. That money is used to file more lawsuits and gain more control of the people.
Jed, true poetic justice would be environmentalists freezing, and no power for their vehicles or computers....and of course starving because the eliminated the food producers and turned the land into their playgrounds. All of which they are trying hard to accomplish.

Thanks Bill for the helping make sense of the choices for Secretary of Interior your article and the following comments make for a good read. Brian thanks also for your input, you are right on the money.

I am a environmentalist. I am opposed to this possible nomination for many reasons, but primarily because in this economy we need a greater pragmatist than Rep. Grijalva. Sorry, folks, but though we need protection of our lands and commitment to global climate change and commitment to developing new alternative energy resources we also need someone who will work with everyone and not be in peoples faces. I don't appreciate an oil man being in charge of Interior nor do I want someone on the other extreme. I would prefer an outdoorsman or woman who presents a credible land ethic. Cong. Grijalva is not a bridge builder. We must have bridges, just not to nowhere! Ever since I lived in Tucson he has impressed me primarily as one of the "good old boys."