McGarva Ranch

August 29, 1997

As a member of the Susanville Resource Advisory Council, I am pleased to make some personal comments.

As it has been said many times in our council meetings and by BLM personnel, our ranges are in better condition now than anytime in probably the last 80 or 90 years.

I agree that we do have allotments that need help, but without a lot of funding, it will be impossible to bring some allotments up to meet the new "standards and guidelines" without causing drastic economic hardship to several permittees. It is a fact that BLM and livestock permittees ar short of money! This brings my concerns to comment on several of them.

I would choose "Alternative #1" because it is the one we worked so hard o as a RAC board, although there are things in it I am not comfortable with.

Chapter 2, page 24, Guideline #14. The most abused allotments are being managed and are getting priority for improvements now but there just isn't enough money to do what is needed. That won't change with "Rangeland Reform Standards and Guidelines." #14 will cause additional workload for BLM staffers to investigate complaints turned in by (cow cops) environmentalists.

Chapter 2, page 20. Refer to flexibility for implementation. This is a must.

Chapter 2, page 24, Guideline #15. Is necessary for local conditions and permittee involvement.

Chapter 4. Refers to economics. I am uncomfortable with the economic study because the Alturas Resource Area was not included. There are AUMs in Lassen and Washoe Counties that willhave a greater impact than I feel was shown in Chapter 4.

The Standards and Guidelines should and must not cause economic hardship to permittees and local counties. WE have the knowledge and expertise to create more AUMs. Let's do that rather than put a family ranching business out of business.

Thank you,

Ken McGarva
McGarva Ranch
Likely, CA