Change has come slowly. Why?

Grazing damage is out of sight and mind for most Americans. The economics are confusing. Cowboys are popular. Also, banks use grazing permits as collateral; if the system changes dramatically, thousands of ranches plunge in value. Many bankers quietly lobby against change.

``If in the middle of a loan we have an increase in grazing fees, then that dips into a rancher's ability to repay his loan,'' said John Anderson, vice president of the New Mexico Bankers Association. Backed by a sympathetic constituency on an issue most Americans don't comprehend, a handful of Western senators, led by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., have been able to block efforts to significantly raise grazing fees.

Domenici declined repeated requests for an interview.

$11.10

Average monthly amount per cow Western ranchers charge to graze

However, he has cited the family rancher in defending the status quo, even though 98 percent of U.S. ranchers don't have public-lands permits. In 1996, he told the Albuquerque Journal: ``It's about whether you want to have any more cowboys around the West or if you want them all to come from Hollywood.''

A Bay Area Democrat, U.S. Rep. George Miller of Martinez, has led efforts for nearly a decade to raise fees and tighten environmental rules. Little has changed.

``You run into a bipartisan bloc of Western senators that decide they are going to fight for this as hard as they fight for anything,'' Miller said. ``They are fighting for an old, irresponsible use of land.''

When President Clinton began his first term in 1993, he unveiled plans to reform mining, logging and grazing practices on public lands. He said the changes would save $1 billion over five years. Yet:

Clinton quickly dropped a plan to raise grazing fees in March 1993 when five Democratic lawmakers joined leading Western Republicans in protest. Clinton decided that because of the rift, the five might not vote for his economic plan. Critics called it a cave-in.

``Ultimately, it was the president's call. The economic plan was the last thing we wanted to go down in flames,'' said former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, who added he still feels that ``taxpayers are not getting a fair return here.''

The same year, Interior chief Babbitt tried to raise fees to $4.28 per cow a month, but Domenici blocked it with a filibuster. After the GOP won Congress in 1994, the administration gave up on fees.

When BLM and national forests are combined, the overall livestock total has fallen just 1.5 percent since 1988. Critics say rural federal officials rarely remove cattle to restore the environment because of local backlash. ``The Clinton administration promised great strides; what we ended up seeing was a lot of baby steps,'' said Cathy Carlson, a grazing activist with the National Wildlife Federation in Boulder, Colo.

Today, Babbitt defends the administration's efforts.

He points out that he has put rules in place under an initiative called ``Rangeland Reform '94'' to keep cattle out of streams and to increase public participation in regional range-advisory councils.

``We took our best shot,'' Babbitt said. ``We have made some important progress. But there aren't any magical breakthroughs. Every range reform of the past 100 years has played out amid intense controversy, but we are gradually making our way.''

Some officials are more blunt.

``It's frustrating,'' said Jim Baca, a former BLM director whom Babbitt forced out in 1994 after run-ins with Western leaders. ``It seems like nothing has changed.''

Baca, now mayor of Albuquerque, said high-tech jobs, such as the new Intel Corp. plant near Albuquerque, provide far more economic power to the West than ranching. But old habits die hard, he said.

``When I was BLM director, if I wanted to move 10 cows in Wyoming, senators would get involved,'' he said. ``I still marvel at it.''

Even Babbitt's Rangeland Reform is in jeopardy. A lawsuit filed by the Public Lands Council, a ranching group, would overturn it. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the key case.

So how does Uncle Sam bring back the environment without bankrupting family ranchers?

One idea is to buy out public-lands cowboys. The Grand Canyon Trust, an Arizona environmental group, recently removed cattle from 132 miles of streams in Utah's new Escalante-Grand Staircase National Monument by paying five families to drop grazing permits.

Terms were not released, but the trust said the buyout cost between $215,000 and $540,000.

Meanwhile, action by the GOP-led Congress to make corporate ranchers pay more is considered a political impossibility. Clinton could raise fees by executive order, but administration sources say he has decided the fight isn't worth it.

And the issue hasn't surfaced in the 2000 presidential campaign.

``Most people just don't care,'' said a Clinton administration source who requested anonymity. ``It was so long and tiring and taxing before, I just don't know if we're going to see any more reform efforts. There's no upside to it. We used a ton of political chits and got nothing.''