Years of overgrazing has kept financial returns from ranching very low and has caused extensive degradation of our country's rangeland soil, water and vegetative resources (Vallentine 1990; Heady & Child 1994; Holechek et al. 1998). This problem has been on going ever since the formation of the range cattle industry in the 1860s (Stoddart & Smith 1943).

Since the New Deal days of the 1930s various government subsidy programs have been initiated and an ocean of money has been spent trying to reduce the negative effects of overgrazing on ranching enterprises and our country's rangelands. Few, if any, of the programs have been successful. In fact, most have caused much more harm than good. Instead of encouraging ranchers to lightly stock their pastures and practice rotational grazing, government subsidies such as the now discontinued USDA Emergency Payments and Disaster Loans have contributed to oversupply of market animals, lower livestock prices, higher feed cost, overloading ranchers with debt, and rangeland degradation. Instead of promoting sound range management practices, past government cost-share programs, such as the now discontinued Great Plains Conservation Program, have encouraged ranchers to overspend on fencing, watering points, brush control, seeding and other range improvements that, in many cases, were financially unjustified and unnecessary. A high percent of past USDA cost-share efforts have resulted in ranchers overloading their grazing land with livestock, and, in some cases, selling-off all or pieces of their grazing land in an attempt to recoup operation losses, cost-share investments, or payoff debt. Thus, they end-up being a waste of both rancher and taxpayer money and counter-productive to rangeland health.

The inability of past government subsidy programs to objectively address the root cause of rangeland overgrazing -- which is ranchers overloading their grazing lands with grazers and browsers in an attempt to make their operations profitable -- has caused me to form the following conclusion. It is long overdue for government to abandon the ineffective USDA subsidy programs of the past and begin implementing programs that take a steady, voluntary, information-oriented approach toward lessening the negative effects of overgrazing on ranching enterprises and our country's rangelands. Such an approach will require the formulation of agricultural policies based on scientifically proven range management practices coupled with education. If this can be done, I see hope for ensuring a sustainable future for rangeland agriculture and rangelands in the United States. Otherwise, the only thing I see is the continued gradual demise of the U.S. range cattle industry and our country's rangelands. I believe that, if overgrazing and its devastating effects on ranching enterprises and our country's rangelands are allowed to continue, it will eventually affect the well being of our nation.

I am fundamentally opposed to government subsidy programs (Ward 1998) and I have a basic dislike for regulatory agendas. But, putting politics aside, I am convinced that some type of government program is needed to promote sound range management practices. That is, if we are planning on saving the U.S. range cattle industry and our country's rangelands from certain ruin. Decades of overuse of native range forage by grazing and browsing animals have caused major water supply and soil erosion problems, shortage of habitat for livestock and wildlife, and destructive lower watershed flooding in many western rangeland areas.

Based on my appraisal of current range conditions in Texas, I believe that a crash course on the importance of maintaining healthy rangelands and the role they play in providing various goods and services needed for human survival would benefit many ranchers and representatives in government. It also seems apparent that ranchers, universities, government, and people in general need to understand that "less, down to a sustainable level" is better than "more, beyond a sustainable level". They also need to understand the "more" approach toward using our country's rangelands will eventually lead to "nothing".

To stop the devastating effects of overgrazing on ranching enterprises and our country's rangelands, I strongly recommend light stocking. Light stocking involves about 10 to 45 percent annual use of primary forage species, depending on the type of rangeland. The long-term benefits of light stocking to soil, water and native vegetation have been well demonstrated by grazing studies at a variety of locations (Johnson 1953; Klipple & Costello 1960; Paulsen & Ares 1962; Houston & Woodward 1996; Smith 1967; Martin & Cable 1974; Holechek 1992; Holechek et. al. 1994). Several studies show that light stocking will actually give higher financial returns with less risk than moderate to heavy stocking (Johnson 1953; Klipple & Costello 1960; Houston & Woodward 1966; Martin 1975; Holechek 1992). Another benefit of light stocking is that it enhances environmental conditions -- soil stability and watershed health -- and increases forage yield in time on most rangelands.

Recently the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has become interested in developing programs for both cultivated land and rangelands that would reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Achievement of this goal depends on increasing the amount of carbon sequestered in the soil by increasing the amount of above and below ground biomass (living and non-living vegetation). Already government programs are being considered that would pay farmers to use tillage practices that retain crop residues for carbon sequestration (Soil Humus Improvement Program, Gutknecht 1998). Light stocking is the surest way to apply this same approach to rangelands.

As a substitute for the ineffective USDA subsidy programs of the past, I recommend strong consideration be given to implementing a national RANGELAND CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM that offers ranchers range management education and an economic incentive (in the form of annual per acre contract payments) to practice light stocking and other sound range management practices.

The primary objective of the program is to provide contractual guidance for the management, enhancement, and, where needed, restoration of privately owned rangelands.

Other objectives would include:

• Reducing livestock numbers in rangeland areas, thereby reducing market oversupply, strengthening livestock prices, and improving net ranch income
  
  
• Preparing ranchers in advance to survive times of drought, floods and low livestock prices, thereby reducing financial, climatic, societal, and biological risk
  
  
• Offering ranchers an economic incentive to take the stress of overstocking off their grazing land, thereby improving the economic health of ranchers and the ecological health of rangelands
  
  
• Providing ranchers a last-chance opportunity to ensure a future for grazing cattle on desert, prairie, and forest rangelands
  
  
• Demonstrating to society that proper grazing of indigenous rangelands is environmentally appropriate
  
  
• Beginning for the first time in recorded history offering a financial reward to ranchers who practice conservation management of our country's rangelands

To meet these goals, a commitment of no less than 10 years from both government and ranchers will be required.

The government program that I'm recommending would be for rangelands only. This is not a program to be used in conjunction with intensively managed tame pastures. My definition of rangeland follows Holechek et al. (1998) which is any expanse of land that is suitable for grazing by domestic livestock and wildlife, and is not fertilized, cultivated or irrigated. My definition of intensively managed tame pasture is any pasture land consisting of non-native plant species that require input in irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, and farm machinery to be productive.

I consider the following components as essential elements in the administration of my recommended government assistance program to ranchers:

Component 1 - The most appropriate government agency determines the eligibility status of applicants. I recommend that applicants be considered eligible if they own or lease privately owned desert, prairie, or forest rangeland for grazing. I also recommend that applicants willing to attach a conservation easement to the title of their grazing land be given preferential consideration.

Component 2 - The most appropriate government agency determines the eligibility status of applicants. I recommend that applicants be considered eligible if they own or lease desert, prairie, or forest rangeland for livestock grazing. I also recommend that applicants with grazing land under the permanent protection of a conservation easement be given preferential consideration.

Component 3 - The most appropriate government agency assigns qualified personnel (or private consultants) to estimate the long-term carrying capacity of each applicant's grazing land. I recommend that projected loss of forage due to grazing, browsing, trampling, rodent and insect damage, prescribed burns, wildfires, and drought be taken into consideration when determining carrying capacity. [Carrying capacity is the maximum number of animal units of grazing and browsing animals that a particular parcel of grazing land can sustain over time without degrading soil, water, and native vegetative resources. (Society of Range Management 1989)] USDA-NRCS has guides that will give reasonable estimates of carrying capacity for most rangelands. In addition, procedures by Holechek (1988) and Troxel & White (1989) can be used to determine carrying capacity.

Component 4 - The most appropriate government agency assigns the maximum allowable number of animal units of livestock and wildlife that applicants can stock on his or her grazing land during the contract period. I recommend that the maximum number of animal units of grazing and browsing animals an applicant can maintain on his grazing land not exceed 60 to 70 percent of projected long-term carrying capacity of the applicant's land. I believe this plays a key role in ensuring a sustainable future for rangeland agriculture and protecting our country's rangelands. (see Boykin et al. 1962)

Component 5 - The most appropriate government agency determines the per acre economic value of the ecological services provided by the applicants' grazing land using scientifically based value figures. I recommend that a special committee including biologists, ecologists, and ecological economists be assigned the task of determining per acre economic value. I also recommend that input from range professionals who are familiar with the forage yield potential and limitations of applicant's grazing land be included in the process.

Component 6 - The most appropriate government agency offers eligible applicants an opportunity to enter into a 10-year or longer contractual agreement with government to manage their grazing land for ecosystem preservation and environmental enhancement as well as for livestock grazing. I recommend that before any contracts are signed the appropriate government agency fully explain to each applicant the legal obligations of both parties under the terms of the agreement.

Component 7 - The most appropriate government agency ensures contract compliance. Rancher compliance can be checked by qualified government range conservationists (or private consultants) conducting spot checks and appraising range conditions. Grass stubble heights could serve as a basis for compliance. (See Heaty & Child 1994 and Holechek et al. 1998)

Under the terms of the contract agreement, the government would agree to compensate ranchers for their willingness to practice sound range management for a period of ten or more years. To encourage a large number of ranchers to participate in the program, annual payments to ranchers must be in line with the going rates for a five- to ten-year grazing lease in applicant's rangeland area. I've asked several Texas ranchers their opinions on this part of the program. Based on their opinions, it would require annual payments equal to this amount before they would consider committing to a long-term rangeland conservation program. In north central Texas, the going rate for a five- to ten-year grazing lease is between $10 and $15 per acre per year.

I recommend that during the contract period, ranchers be required to include the following practices in their range management programs:

• Manage their grazing land within an assigned range of animal units, which may or may not involve managing populations of both livestock and wildlife
  
  
• Rotate the grazing of their livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, goats, etc.) according to a proven, low-cost rotational grazing plan

Here, after ranchers have signed a 10-year contract agreement to lightly stock their grazing land and practice rotational grazing, I can see real justification for additional contract agreements between government and ranchers to do needed range restoration work such as brush control and reseeding.

In addition to the above conditions, I recommend a special provision be included that requires ranchers during times of drought to reduce livestock numbers down to what current range forage resources will support. Over the years, I have learned that the key to minimizing the devastating effects of drought on ranching enterprises and rangelands is keeping stocking levels compatible with currently existing forage resources. I have also learned that when stocking rate reductions are initiated early, fewer animals will have to be sold over the course of a drought. (Gill 1998) The purpose of this stipulation in the agreement would be to prevent overgrazing of range forage from occurring during times of low rainfall and poor growing conditions.

My definition of overgrazing is reducing grass stubble heights below the guidelines provided by Holechek et al. (1998). This means maintaining height levels of 12 inches on tall-grasses, 6 inches on mid-grasses, and 2 to 3 inches on short-grasses.

Considering all the money that federal and state governments have spent on range research and management programs, I find it truly amazing that so many ranchers have limited knowledge of this subject. Therefore, I strongly recommend that an educational initiative be attached to this program. The intent of this initiative would be to bring the concepts of sound range management into clear focus to the average rancher and to establish important fundamentals on the proper grazing of rangelands. The information presented must be based on scientifically collected data and practical experience. It is my opinion that teaching ranchers how to manage the grazing of rangelands properly will play a vital role in my recommended government program.

I believe the government program that I've presented offers indisputable benefits to ranchers, society, and the environment.

Some of the benefits of the program to ranchers would include

• reducing financial, climate, societal and biological risks
• reducing animal unit grazing land costs
• reducing animal unit supplementary feed costs
• reducing parasite and disease problems in cattle
• reducing loss of livestock due to intake of poisonous plants
• improving the economic viability of lightly stocked rangeland.

Some of the benefits of the program to society and the environment would include preserving open space for

• food production
• recharge of aquifers
• watershed protection
• natural flood control
• purification of air and water
• regeneration of soil and water fertility
• carbon sequestration
• wildlife and fish habitat
• preservation of biodiversity
• public recreation
• cultural enrichment.

I feel it important to point out that there are numerous ways the government program I'm presenting could be used for the benefit of ranchers, communities, the nation and future generations. The program could be used as a national approach to

• protecting our country's food and water supply
• improving the long-range effectiveness of government spending on rangeland conservation programs
• reducing flood and mudslide damage in California and other western range states
• buffering the spread of urban sprawl
• enhancing wildlife and fish habitat
• improving water, oxygen, and energy yield from grasslands
• improving soil quality
• preserving the diversity of plants and animals
• reducing loss of top soil to water and wind erosion
• reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere
• reducing the amount of methane gas released in the air by ruminant animals
• minimizing the negative effects of global warming and climate change
• protecting endangered wildlife species
• promoting multiple land use
• diversifying range agriculture income
• rewarding responsible conservation of rangeland resources.

As previously mentioned, I've always objected to governmental subsidy programs to ranchers and farmers in the past. But, after years of closely observing the negative effects of overgrazing and high-risk speculation on ranching enterprises and our country rangelands, with no end to the destruction in sight, I have changed my opinion. Now, I have come to conclusion that the implementation of a government program such as the one I've presented is absolutely necessary to prevent the eventual demise of our country's range cattle industry and our country's rangelands. Hopefully, our representatives in government will come to the same conclusion before all hope for preventing the total destruction of our country's range cattle industry and our country's rangelands is gone.

Boykin, C.C., J.R. Gray, and D.P. Caton. 1962. "Ranch Production Adjustments to Drought in Eastern New Mexico." New Mexico Agri. Exp. Sta. Bull. 470.

Gill, Ron. 1998. "Maintaining Herd Performance During Drought." Texas A&M Univ. Ext. Serv. News Letter: Vol. 3, No. 3, Fall 1998.

Gutknecht, K. 1998. "Can Carbon Be a New Cash Crop." Farmer-Stockman (August): 28-30.

Heady, H., and D. Child. 1994. "Rangeland Ecology and Management." West View Press. San Francisco, Calif.

Holechek, J.L. 1988. "An Approach for Setting the Stocking Rate." Rangelands 10:10-14.

Holechek, J.L. 1992. "Financial Benefits of Range Management Practices in the Chihuahuan Desert." Rangelands 14:279-282.

Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper, and C.H. Herbel. 1998. "Range Management: Principles and Practices." 3rd Edition. Prentice-Hall. Upper Saddle River, N.J.

Holechek, J.L., A. Tembo, A. Daniel, M. Fusco, and M. Cardenas, 1994. "Long Term Grazing Influences on Chihuahuan Desert Rangeland." Southwest. Nat. 39:342-349.

Houston, W.R. and R.R. Woodward. 1996. "Effects of Stocking Rates on Range Vegetation and Beef Cattle Production in the Northern Great Plains." U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1357.

Johnson, W.M. 1953. "Effect of Grazing Intensity Upon Vegetation and Cattle Gains on Ponderosa Pine-bunchgrass Ranges of the Front Range of Colorado." U.S. Dept. Agric. Circ. 929.

Klipple, G.E. and D.F. Costello. 1960. "Vegetation and Cattle Responses to Different Intensities of Grazing on Shortgrass Ranges of the Central Great Plains." U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1216.

Martin, S.C. 1975. "Stocking Strategies and Net Cattle Sales on Semi-desert Range." U.S. Dept. Agric.. For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM-146.

Martin, S.C., and D.R. Cable. 1974. "Managing Semi-desert Grass-shrub Ranges: Vegetation Responses to Precipitation, Grazing, Soil Texture, and Mesquite Control." U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1480.

Paulsen, H.A., and F.N. Ares. 1962. "Grazing Values and Management of Black Grama and Tobosa Grasslands and Associated Shrub Ranges of the Southwest." U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1270.

Smith, D.R. 1967. "Effects of Cattle Grazing on a Ponderosa Pine-bunchgrass Range in Colorado." U.S. Dept. Agric. For Serv. Tech. Bull. 1371.

Society for Management. 1989. "A Glossary of Terms Used in Range Management." 3rd Ed. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colo.

Stoddart, L.A., and A.D. Smith. 1943. "Range Management." McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. New York.

Troxel, T.R., and L.D. White. 1989. "Balancing Forage Demand with Forage Supply." Texas A&M Univ. Ext. Serv. Publ. B-1606.

Vallentine, J.F. 1990. "Grazing Management." Academic Press, Inc. NY.

Ward, Nol. 1998. "Sustainable Ranching: A Rancher's Perspective." Rangelands 20 (3): 33-37.

___________________________________

This article, revised in February 2005, was first published in "Rangelands", June 1999.

The author, Nol Ward, is a retired lifetime cattleman and private rangeland conservationist. His e-mail address is: nol@consolidated.net.

Back to NHO's information page