Isn't part of the trade off the fact that the rancher given the lease has to maintain fences, weed control, and water development as well? Saving the government money. The forest service goes over lease goals and land development almost yearly at times with lease holders where improvement goals are set, ultimately they can pull your lease if you violate policy. Doesn't that leave the forest service somewhat responsible for mismanaged leases? Though the current administration isn't exactly friendly to them and I know they aren't being given the budget to be able to hire enough personnel. But I am curious, What is your end goal here? To eliminate grazing on public lands? Raise the fee?