The New Ranch Handbook - Savory Institute

March 2001Vol 4., No. 2

(con’t on page 19)

The New Ranch Handbook:A Guide to Restoring Western Rangelandsbbbbby Nay Nay Nay Nay Nathan Sathan Sathan Sathan Sathan Sayryryryryreeeee and space, making fixed measure-

ments of carrying capacity or “theright” stocking rate questionable.And they do not necessarily revert toa single, “climax” vegetation com-munity when released from grazing.

In recent decades, scientists havebegun to develop models to explainand explore these complex dynam-ics. There is a need to update thetools and concepts of range manage-ment to reflect the improved scien-tific understanding emerging fromthis work.

While much remains to beunderstood about these ecosystems,several fundamental processes affect-ing vegetation have been described.Grazing is one of several types ofnatural disturbance to which manyrange plants are adapted; its effectsdepend—like those of other distur-bances—on timing, intensity, andfrequency, and it can be managed inthese terms. Vegetation is highly

sensitive to variations in availablewater and nutrients, both of whichcycle through the ecosystem in waysthat can be indirectly influenced bymanagement. The New Ranch dem-onstrates that management tailoredto these processes, and attuned tovariability, can conserve rangelandresources and help restore areas thathave been degraded in the past—while simultaneously producinggreater returns for the ranch. In-deed, profitable ranching needs eco-logically healthy and functioningrangelands, because the same pro-cesses that support wildlife habitat,watershed functioning, andbiodiversity also produce more andbetter forage for livestock.

Ranching as SustainableRanching as SustainableRanching as SustainableRanching as SustainableRanching as SustainableAgricultureAgricultureAgricultureAgricultureAgriculture

To be sustainable, ranch-ing must convert natural forage intolivestock in such a way that theforage remains vital year after year.This is possible because grasses areresilient to grazing—that they can

Editor’s Note: The New RanchThe New RanchThe New RanchThe New RanchThe New RanchHandbook: A Guide to RestoringHandbook: A Guide to RestoringHandbook: A Guide to RestoringHandbook: A Guide to RestoringHandbook: A Guide to RestoringWestern RangelandsWestern RangelandsWestern RangelandsWestern RangelandsWestern Rangelands profiles sixranches where ecological and economicimprovement have been achievedthrough creative, progressive manage-ment—places the Quivira Coalitionrefers to as New Ranches. Threepractice short duration grazing, andthree utilize rest-rotation systems. TheHandbook situates these ranchers’practices in a larger discussion of cur-rent scientific knowledge and theoriesabout arid and semiarid rangelands.Principles for sustainable, more prof-itable ranching are developed, alongwith guidance for applying the prin-ciples on the ground. What follows isa highly condensed summary of thescientific argument.

Arid and semiarid range-lands (receiving less than 10 or 20inches of rain per year, on average,respectively) defy some of the centralassumptions of classical ecology andconventional range management.They are highly variable over time

March 2001

2

The Quivira Coalition News-letter is published by The QuiviraCoalition 4 times a year.

The opinions expressed insigned articles are the opinions of thewriters and not necessarily those of theCoalition. Articles may be freely re-printed for nonprofit purposes, pro-vided that credit is given to the authorand The Quivira Coalition.

Subscriptions are availablefor $15 a year. Please send a check ormoney order to The Quivira Coalition,551 Cordova Road, #423, Santa Fe,NM 87501. Send address changes tothe same address. Please allow 4-6weeks for processing.

The QuiviraCoaliTion

551 Cordova Road, #423Santa Fe, NM 87501

(505) 820-2544(505) 466-4935 (fax)

www.quiviracoalition.org

Printed on RecycledElectrons Worldwide

Executive DirectorCourtney White(505) [email protected]

Communications DirectorBarbara Johnson(505) [email protected]

Administrative CoordinatorTamara Sherburn(505) [email protected]

Founders:Jim Winder(505) [email protected] WhiteBarbara Johnson

Press Conference, January 22, 2001Of Land and Culture: Environmental Justice andPublic Lands Ranching in Northern New Mexico

A crowd ofabout 35 joined us atthe State Capitol aswe announced thepublication of OfOfOfOfOfLand and Culture:Land and Culture:Land and Culture:Land and Culture:Land and Culture:Environmental Jus-Environmental Jus-Environmental Jus-Environmental Jus-Environmental Jus-tice and Publictice and Publictice and Publictice and Publictice and PublicLands Ranching inLands Ranching inLands Ranching inLands Ranching inLands Ranching inNorthern NewNorthern NewNorthern NewNorthern NewNorthern NewMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexico, a Joint Re-port by the QuiviraCoalition and theSanta Fe Group of theSierra Club.

T h o s epresent, includingseveral reporters,heard author ErnestAtencio, CourtneyWhite, Executive Di-rector of the QuiviraCoalition, CliffLarsen, ConservationChair of the Santa FeGroup of the SierraClub, and VirgilTrujillo, Manager ofRangelands at Ghost

The Rotunda during the Press Conference.

Courtney, Virgil, and Ernie. (Photos courtesy ofGene Peach.)

Ranch, speak about the report and its importance.As the Sierra Club faces a referendum on “no grazing on public

land,” this report addresses the consequences of such a policy for ranchersin northern New Mexico. According to the report:

“Without access to public lands, it’s clear that an age-old tradition,and an essential local economic pursuit, would probably be over. . . losingall access to centuries-old traditional grazing lands would be the final blow.

Not only would the rich fabric ofsocial, cultural, and economic con-tinuity begin to fray, but local ranch-ers who are barely staying afloat as itis in a floundering local economywould find themselves in worse con-dition, struggling to provide eventhe basic comforts, food, and educa-tion for their families.”

This report is free. But callsoon as quantities are limited.

http://www.quiviracoalition.org

mailto:[email protected]



March 2001

3

It was a little over two yearsago when Board members JimWinder and Kris Havstad pro-posed that we publish a book.

Each felt that the time hadcome to articulate the science be-hind progressive ranch manage-ment, and to do so in a compre-hensive, and yet easy-to-read, pub-lication.

Over the years, Jim hadcollected a stack of articles on ecol-ogy and range science that mea-sured two feet high. Kris had beenresearching and writing on thetopic for most of his adult life.Surely, they thought, we can syn-thesize this material into a 100-page book, right?

Right.We had the good fortune

to know, and hire, Nathan Sayreto do the job. Nathan had justcompleted a Ph.D. in Anthropol-ogy at the University of Chicago.His dissertation focused on themanagement of a federal wildliferefuge south of Tucson and theranching community that sur-rounded it. He was well-versed inthe historical, cultural, and eco-logical issues at play in the region.And he jumped at the opportunityto work for us.

With a generous grantfrom the Thaw Charitable Trustand the National Fish and Wild-life Foundation, we were able tosend Nathan into the field.

Two years later, we are veryhappy to announce the publica-tion of The New Ranch Hand-The New Ranch Hand-The New Ranch Hand-The New Ranch Hand-The New Ranch Hand-book: A Guide to Restoringbook: A Guide to Restoringbook: A Guide to Restoringbook: A Guide to Restoringbook: A Guide to RestoringWestern RangelandsWestern RangelandsWestern RangelandsWestern RangelandsWestern Rangelands.

As we wrote in the Preface,its goals are: 1) To describe man-agement practices that have suc-

ceeded in improving both the con-servation values and the economicsustainability of a handful ofranches in the Southwest.

2) To situate these man-agement practices in a frameworkof scientific research that helps toexplain their success.

3) To offer a common vo-cabulary and set of concepts forranchers, scientists, agency offi-cials, and environmentalists to usein addressing rangeland issues.

And 4) To increase aware-ness of the complexity and diffi-culty of managing rangelands well.

Concerning the subtitle,Nathan writes, “Restoring West-ern Rangelands refers to conserv-ing, restoring, and/or enhancingthe basic ecological processes andfunctions that support rangelandhealth: soil stability, watershedfunction, nutrient and energyflows, and resistance and resilienceto disturbance.”

Did we succeed in ouraims? According to Bill McDonald,fifth generation rancher, Execu-tive Director of the Malpai Bor-derlands Group, and MacArthurFellowship recipient, “This bookshould be required reading for ev-eryone who has an interest in natu-ral resource management in theWest, especially those concernedwith livestock grazing.”

Prof. George Ruyle, Chairof the Rangeland and Forest Re-sources Program at the Universityof Arizona says, “The New RanchHandbook promises much in titleand delivers more in substance.”

But don’t take our wordfor it. Order a copy for yourself.Let us know what you think.

And tell a friend.

From theFoundersJim WinderCourtney WhiteBarbara Johnson

The New Ranch Handbook:A Guide to Restoring West-ern Rangelands will be avail-able at the New Ranch Con-ference (March 10) at a re-duced price. If you are un-able to attend, send $10 plus$3.50 for shipping and han-dling to:

The New Ranch HandbookQuivira Coalition551 Cordova Rd. #423Santa Fe, NM 87501

March 2001

4

(con’t on page 5)

AnnouncingCibola ServicesEnvironmental

Monitoring

The Quivira Coalition hasdecided to start a contract moni-toring and assessment business.

We call it Cibola Services.Its mission is to provide scientifi-cally credible, nonpartisan, quanti-tative and qualitative data to publicand private landowners on the en-vironmental conditions of theirland through a combination of as-sessment and long-term monitor-ing.

As everyone reading thisnewsletter probably knows, theneed for reliable, nonpartisan in-formation on the conditions andtrends of public and private landsin the West is huge—and growing.

Increasingly, the public isdemanding accurate data on theenvironmental health of its range-lands, forest, and riparian areas. Atthe same time, expandingworkloads and decreasing budgetshave severely limited the ability offederal and state land mangers toconduct long-term monitoringprojects to meet this demand.Many private landowners are in asimilar bind.

A lack of trust among in-dividuals, interest groups, and landowners complicates the picture.Data collected by ranchers maynot be accepted by environmentalorganizations; information gath-ered by federal employees may notbe trusted by the agricultural com-munity; and so on.

By creating impasses andinhibiting good decision-making,this climate of distrust has had del-eterious effects on environmen-tal health. Assessment and moni-toring, however, by an organiza-tion perceived as “third-party” andcredible by most individuals and

organizations could resolve this con-flict.

Why Monitor?Why Monitor?Why Monitor?Why Monitor?Why Monitor?The primary purpose of

monitoring is to detect CHANGEover time. Detecting change inriparian and upland environmentsis the best way to provide answersto questions that will help land-owner/managers make informeddecisions about the future of theland under their care. On publicland, it is the best way to informcitizens of the current conditionsand trends of their land, and tobuild trust.

Additionally, indepen-dently gathered, scientifically cred-ible monitoring data will fill in the“blank spots” in the often conten-tious debate about the effects ofcattle grazing in the West. Toomuch of this debate is being arguedwithout reliable data, with manysides relying on testimonials or hear-say to make their point.

Fortunately, a consensusis emerging among the scientificcommunity about what to moni-tor, how, and where.

In 1994, The NationalAcademy of Sciences, in a publica-tion entitled Rangeland Health,defined rangeland health as “thedegree to which the integrity of thesoil and ecological processes ofrangeland ecosystems are main-tained.”

Their monitoring objec-tive is to quantify over time theeffects of management treatmentsin a variety of habitats. This means,principally, quantifying ecosystemfunction, resistance to degradation,

by Courtney White

March 2001

5

Jim Winder, ChairBarbara Johnson, Vice Chair

Dutch Salmon, SecretaryBob Jenks, Treasurer,

Assistant Commissioner, NewMexico State Land Office*

Dan Dagget, author andenvironmentalist

Dr. Kris Havstad, SupervisoryScientist, Jornada

Experimental Range*Frank Hayes, U.S. ForestService District Ranger,

Clifton, Arizona*Mark McCollum, Rancher

Virgil Trujillo, Manager,Ghost Ranch*

* * * * * For informational purposes onlyFor informational purposes onlyFor informational purposes onlyFor informational purposes onlyFor informational purposes only

The Board of Directors

(con’t on page 6)

Cibola Services(con’t from page 4)

and capacity to recover followingdegradation. Monitoring measure-ments are used to generate a suite ofbasic indicators which are directlyrelated to three fundamental at-tributes of ecosystem function:

•soil/site stability: theability to resist erosion by windand water;

•hydrology: the ability tocapture, store, and safely releasewater from rain or run-off; and

•biotic integrity: the abil-ity to support functional commu-nities and resist disturbance.

The point is a simple, butsignificant, one: before a piece ofland can have VALUE, i.e., beforeit can support wildlife or recre-ation or livestock production, itmust be in properly functioningcondition. If it is not healthy, thenmeasures should be taken to re-store it.

Assessing and monitoringsoil, water, and grass conditionover time will enable all interestedparties to examine and manageland for rangeland health. This isthe key, we believe, to long-termsustainable use of public and pri-vate land.

What is Cibola Services?What is Cibola Services?What is Cibola Services?What is Cibola Services?What is Cibola Services?We will deliver voluntary,

collaborative, non-partisan moni-toring and assessment services toindividuals, organizations, andagencies that request it. We willonly work where we are wantedand where we believe we can begenuinely helpful. We will onlyhire Designers, Crew Chiefs, andCrew Members who are profes-sional, skillful, enthusiastic, andcommitted to the collaborative pro-cess. At the same time, we are com-

mitted to running Cibola Servicesin a business-like manner.

For assessments we willfollow the guidelines put forwardin a multi-agency document en-titled Interpreting Indicators ofRangeland Health (Technical Ref-erence 1734-6, 2000). Usingknowledgeable people, this ap-proach: 1) helps land managersidentify areas that are at risk fordegradation; 2) helps select moni-toring sites; and 3) helps commu-nicate rangeland health issues to awide variety of audiences.

Assessments are both aseparate service and a part of themonitoring program.

For monitoring, we willuse a new protocol developed bythe scientists at the USDA’s JornadaExperimental Range. At each moni-toring site, which consists of a cen-ter post with three transects in equi-distant spokes leading away fromthe center post, four basic measure-ments are taken: photo points, linepoint intercepts for vegetationcover and composition, continu-ous line intercepts for size ofintercanopy gaps, and soil stabilityfor integrity of soil structure anderosion resistance. Additional mea-surements may be developed oradded according to the monitoringgoals.

Photo points. A photo istaken of each transect while thetape is still lying on the groundalong the transect. The picture istaken from directly above the cen-ter post with the long axis of thecamera parallel to the ground.

Line-point intercept.This measurement provides quan-

March 2001

6

(con’t on page 7)


Monitoring at the Jornada Experimen-tal Range. (Photo courtesy of KrisHavstad.)

titative indicators of biotic integ-rity including species composition,community and canopy structure,

and surface structure. Dropping apin flag so that it falls vertically andtouches the near side of the tape,the recorder notes every live leaf orstem touching the pin, or the verti-cal line drawn by the pin, from thesky down to the soil or groundsurface. Litter, rock, lichen, moss,crust, or bare soil are recorded ifthey occur. Dead trees, grasses,forbs, or shrubs are recorded. Thisdata provides a means of compar-ing data collected at different loca-tions and at different times. As aresult, trends in time for each of theindicators will be evident.

Continuous line inter-cept. This data is also quantitativeand provides a measure for com-paring the number of canopy gapsper site, the mean gap size per site,and the relative distribution of gapsizes at each site. Each of these gapfeatures is indicative of system struc-ture and function, particularly withrespect to potential for erosion.

Soil stability. This mea-surement provides indicators ofsoil structural development and ero-sion resistance.

Putting It To WorkPutting It To WorkPutting It To WorkPutting It To WorkPutting It To WorkWith regard to monitor-

ing, Cibola Services uses a two-step program. The first step con-sists of a collaboration between thelandowner, or permittee and fed-eral overseer, and the Designer ofa monitoring plan. This is impor-tant because the critical step in de-signing a monitoring program isdeciding where to place the moni-toring sites—a decision that mustbe made with ecological and man-agement objectives in mind. There-fore, a constructive dialogue be-tween the landowner and the De-signer is an essential first step toimplementing a monitoring pro-gram.

Designers are individualswho have extensive knowledge andtraining in ecological processes,quantitative and qualitative moni-toring protocols, “real world” ex-perience in local landscapes, and asignificant understanding of theranching industry, including thevariety of ranch management strat-egies. Designers, along with CrewChiefs and Crew Members, will beon contract to the Quivira Coali-tion through Cibola Services.

Working together, thelandowner and the Designer willcreate a long-range monitoring planthat fits the nature of the physicalterrain, specific objectives of man-agement, and the long-term “vi-sion” of the landowner, includingany future desired conditions.

March 2001

7

NeNeNeNeNew Rw Rw Rw Rw Rancancancancanch Confh Confh Confh Confh ConferererererenceenceenceenceenceSSSSSaturaturaturaturaturdaydaydaydayday, M, M, M, M, Marararararch 10, 2001, 8:30am-5pmch 10, 2001, 8:30am-5pmch 10, 2001, 8:30am-5pmch 10, 2001, 8:30am-5pmch 10, 2001, 8:30am-5pm

FFFFFarararararm and Rm and Rm and Rm and Rm and Ranch Manch Manch Manch Manch Museumuseumuseumuseumuseum Las C Las C Las C Las C Las Crrrrrucesucesucesucesuces

This FREE one-day event is for anyone interestedin new approaches to ranch management on

private and public land.Speakers include:

Roger Bowe, Rafter F Cattle Co.Dave Bradford, U.S.F.S.

Mac Donaldson, Empire RanchSid Goodloe, Carrizo Valley Ranch

Dr. Kris Havstad, Jornada Exp. RangeBill McDonald, Malpai Borderlands Group

Sam Montoya, Pueblo of SandiaDavid Ogilvie, U Bar Ranch

Scott Stoleson, Rocky Mtn. Research StationVirgil Trujillo, Ghost Ranch

Jim Winder, Double Lightning RanchTopics to be covered include: proper ecological

stewardship of watersheds; herding; how to makea profit in ranching; holistic planning; ranching andendangered species protection; the best science;

how to make public lands ranching work in the newmillenium; collaboration;

and monitoring.The Quivira Coalition will also DEBUTDEBUTDEBUTDEBUTDEBUT a major

publication at this conference! It’s calledThe NThe NThe NThe NThe New Rew Rew Rew Rew RanchanchanchanchanchSMSMSMSMSM H H H H Handbook:andbook:andbook:andbook:andbook:

A GA GA GA GA Guide to Ruide to Ruide to Ruide to Ruide to Restoring Westoring Westoring Westoring Westoring Westeresteresteresterestern Rn Rn Rn Rn Rangelandsangelandsangelandsangelandsangelands,authored by Dr. Nathan Sayre

It is a comprehensive guide to the issues surround-ing science and progressive management in the

Southwest.Bill McDonald calls the handbook “required

reading for anyone interested in natural resourceissues” in the region. George Ruyle says it “may

serve both as a textbook and as a referencemanual.”

This conference is FREE, but please RSVP so wecan get an accurate head count for lunch.

SMThe New Ranch is a service mark of the Quivira Coalition.


Monitoring design, includ-ing the number of sites necessary,the use of control sites, the lengthof transects and the particular mea-surements to be used, will be devel-oped in collaboration with theranchers and land managers, ac-cording to the specific monitoringgoals established for each ranch.Participating ranches will be evalu-ated before treatment for soil type,slope and aspect, the presence orabsence of water, and variation indominant vegetation. Monitoringsites should be representative of thesoil, topographic, and floral varia-tion occurring across the wholemonitored area.

The second step involvesimplementation of the approvedmonitoring plan. A team of two tothree trained monitoring profes-sionals, led by a Crew Chief, wouldvisit the monitoring sites and con-duct the first round of work. Then,depending on the details of theplan, the crew would return to thesites on a periodic basis (preferablywith the same people), probablyannually, to continue the moni-toring work.

The Crew Chief is respon-sible for organizing the crew, over-seeing the work, interacting withthe landowner, and writing thefinal report. The Crew Chief willlikely work with the landownerand the Designer in the latter stagesof creating a monitoring program.

Other details, such as anOversight Panel, which will ensurethe scientific credibility and objec-


March 2001

8

(con’t on page 9)

of subdivisions moving in aroundhere either,” says Roger with achuckle.

In the early 1980s, Rogerand his family, including hisbrother, faced the possibility thatthey would be the next to leave.The ranch suffered from a slow,but steady ecological decline. Hiscattle, though distributed evenlyacross the ranch, were impactingthe land unevenly. They were over-grazing the blue grama and buffalograsses on the flat mesa tops whileunderutilizing the tobosa bottom-lands.

The cattle didn’t mind thisarrangement much, but the landdid. Roger began to observe a dis-tinct lack of vigor in the plantcommunity across the ranch. Thegrasses on the mesatops were neverallowed to set seed, and the tobosagrass looked gray and sickly. “Iknew the land was unhealthy,”says Roger in his quiet plains ac-cent, “but I didn’t know why.”

That’s when Roger dis-tinctly heard the whistle of changefor the first time.

HRMHRMHRMHRMHRMIn 1983, looking for an-

swers to their dilemma, Roger, hisbrother, and, eventually, his fatherenrolled in a course on HolisticResource Management (HRM)taught by Allan Savory where theylearned a life-changing lesson:overgrazing had more to do withtiming than with numbers of cattle.

Recovery was the key. Agrazed plant needed sufficient timeto recover, and become vigorousonce more, before being grazed

Profile of GoodStewardship:

The RafterF Cattle

Company

Roger Bowe heard thewhistle of change long before thetrain ever appeared on the tracks.

For three generations, theBowe family managed the private,14,000-acre Rafter F as a tradi-tional cattle ranch. That meantcontinuous grazing year round at astocking rate that was commensu-rate with the ranch’s location onthe high, windy plains of the NewMexico-Texas state line, near In-

terstate 40.Change is no stranger to

the area, however. Thirty yearsafter Roger’s grandfather home-steaded the ranch in the early1900s, the Bowe family watchedwith dismay as a sizeable farmingcommunity in the area was liter-ally blown away in the Dust Bowl.In the decades since, families havecontinued to drift away one at atime. Roger thinks the populationhas dropped by two-thirds sincehe was a boy—a trend he believeswill likely continue into the fu-ture.

“There’s not much threat

Roger Bowe. (Photo courtesy ofRoger Bowe.)

March 2001

9

Good Stewardship:

The Rafter F CattleCompany(con’t from page 8)

again. Sending the cattle back intoa pasture too soon would causeovergrazing. The numbers of cattleinvolved, or stocking rate, had verylittle to do with anything.

Roger and his family cameaway from the HRM courses con-vinced that if ranchers were tosucceed in a rapidly changingworld, they had to start learningthe principles of ecosystem func-tion. The words “water cycle,mineral cycle, energy flow, andsuccession became the words weused to describe the landscape,”says Roger. “This is like a foreignlanguage to most ranchers and it issure not what I was taught inschool. This has been a big prob-lem in trying to relate what wewere doing to other ranchers.

“My dad and I were veryexcited about what we hadlearned,” continues Roger, “butwe made the mistake of building alot of fences and doubling thestocking rate right off.

“Thank goodness we werealso monitoring what was happen-ing on the ground.”

The plants, Roger noticed,were not recovering quicklyenough. He responded by reduc-ing the size of his herd and creatinglonger periods of recovery for theplants.

It took three years to workthe kinks out of the system, butmonitoring data showed signifi-cant improvements. Bare groundon the ranch decreased by one-third; litter cover increased by over10%; basal cover doubled. Theaverage distance between plantsdeclined by two-thirds andsnakeweed declined by 90%.

Roger raised the water

table, too. “We had an old wellthat ran dry in the ’50s, but now ithas 10 feet of water in it,” he says.“My dad had never seen water staythere. He had seen it dry from1950 to 1990.” Roger credits theshort-duration grazing manage-m e n tfor then e wwater;b ygrow-i n gm o r eg r a s she in-creasedt h erate ofwa t e ri n f i l -trationon theranch.

“Growing water” is justone of a number of wonders Rogerhas experienced since 1985. “I’veseen tremendous things happen-ing,” he says. “We have many newgrass species showing up—bluestem, western wheat grass,Canadian wild rye, Indian grassand a 50 to 60% increase in groundcover from new plants and litter.”

The key, says Roger, is awillingness to keep learning fromthe land. “After 15 years of this,I’m still a student,” he says with asmile.

ProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitAlmost as a bonus, Roger’s

ecological success on his ranchtranslated into economic success


March 2001

10

as well. Even though he more thandoubled the size of his herd, Rogermanaged to cut the productioncosts per pound of beef in halfwhile raising production. “Wewent from 15 pounds per acre to32,” says Roger. And his profitswent up correspondingly.

Roger’s labor costs werereduced as well. For ex-ample, winter feeding, oncean eight-hour job, now onlytakes two hours because thecows are grouped togetheras a herd. Of course, theinitial labor of building thepaddocks and establishingnew water sources was ex-pensive, but Rogerfigures the return on thatinvestment has now sur-passed 1000%.The ranch’s rise in profit-

ability was not an accident,however. It was part of acarefully considered plan.“HRM is more than just agrazing system,” explainsRoger, “it helps you attainyour goals for your total op-eration.” Roger and his fam-ily were required to sit down

and come up with long-rangeplans. What did they want theranch ecology to look like? Whatsort of quality of life did they wantto achieve? What were their pro-duction goals? “It was the hardestthing I’ve ever done,” he says. Butit paid off handsomely.

“Success requires vision,observes Roger, “but it also re-quires flexibility. Don’t cast yourgoals in stone, or you won’t reachthem.” That flexibility includesthe grazing system itself, notesRoger, which must be adapted to

the specific economic and ecologi-cal needs of each ranch. The prin-ciples are always the same—rest,recovery, timing, intensity, fre-quency—but how they are ex-pressed can vary tremendously.

In 1993, Roger’s successpaid an unexpected dividend whenhe was selected as one of sevenregional winners of the NationalCattleman’s Association’s Envi-ronmental Stewardship Award. Asthe Southwest representative,Roger was recognized by the Se-lection Committee of the NCAfor showing that good conserva-tion practices and good businessgo hand in hand. He also got a freetrip to the annual convention inReno, Nevada.

Roger made the newspa-pers and was quoted as saying,“With a little investment in capi-tal, a lot of hard work, and a bigchange in the way I manage re-sources, we have made goodprogress in sustaining our land forthe next generation.”

FrustrationFrustrationFrustrationFrustrationFrustrationIf there is a dark cloud to

Roger’s tale of success, however, itmight be the frustration he feels atthe slow response of his fellowranchers to his example.

“When neighbors come onthe ranch, they always look side-ways, either at the horizon or at mycattle,” says Roger. “They onlywant to talk about the weather orperformance. They almost neverlook at the ground.”

And talking about theland, Roger believes, is the key tothe future of ranching.

Good Stewardship:

The Rafter F CattleCompany

(con’t from page 9)


March 2001

11

Good Stewardship:The Rafter F CattleCompany(con’t from page 10)

Healing riparian area on the Rafter F.(Photo courtesy of Roger Bowe.)

Over the years Roger hasworked hard to share his storywith other ranchers. He has writ-ten and lectured extensively, andeven taught a class on holistic man-agement at the community collegein Tucumcari. “I even tell peoplethat I’ve dropped my golf handi-cap from 12 to six since switchingto HRM, which is true,” saysRoger, with a smile.

It hasn’t worked. It’s notjust his neighbors either; Rogerhas encountered everythingfrom skepticism to outright hos-tility from ranchers across theregion. To a meat-and-potatoesrancher like Roger, who doesnot consider himself a radical atall, it is a perplexing, and dis-tressing, situation.

The reasons for resis-tance by ranchers are varied,but Roger singles out one inparticular: pride. “The quick-est way to end a conversation isto say I’m here to educate you,”he says, “especially if the topicinvolves the environment. Mostranchers equate any discussionabout ecology with environmen-tal activists from the city,” he says.

It is an irony that causesRoger some pain. “What environ-mentalists say is what ranchers be-lieve too,” he says. “There shouldbe a lot of common ground, butthere hasn’t so far.”

Doubly frustrating is thedenial maintained by ranchers inthe face of rapid change takingplace all around them. Roger hearsthe whistle of change loud andclear on the tracks, aimed directlyat the ranching community. “It’scoming,” says Roger, referring topressure from cities and other glo-

bal forces, “and every rancher shouldpay attention.”

Roger has worked hard tostay ahead of that whistle. Thatmore ranchers have not chosenvoluntarily to join him has dis-couraged him somewhat, but notto the point of despair.

Like most ranchers, Rogerremains stubbornly optimistic.

“Doing things differentlycan really pull you down some-times,” says Roger. “Peer pressurecan be overwhelming to the pointyou want to say why bother? Whenthis happens I saddle up my trustyquarterhorse and ride the rangelooking at the creeks that havehealed up with grass, I ride by theponds that are clear and full of lifeagain, I look at the grass plants thatare thriving due to proper rest, andfinally I go back home and look atmy goals and smile, knowing thatI’ll never go back.”

March 2001

12


November 17-18, 2000

The GrassbankConference,

Santa Fe

On November 17 and 18,2000, almost 200 ranch-ers, conservationists, gov-ernment officials, scien-tists, and other interestedindividuals gathered inSanta Fe for a “conferenceof ideas and experiences”related to grassbanks. Theterm “grassbank”—coined during the early1990s by New Mexicorancher/poet DrumHadley and trademarkedby the Malpai BorderlandsGroup with which he isaffiliated—refers to theuse, through formal agree-ments, of carefully man-aged and monitored grass-lands as a renewable resourcefor grazing livestock while

the land where that stock is ordi-narily grazed is rested and rehabili-tated.

Participants in the confer-ence included many key players,such as Hadley, who are pioneer-ing the use of grassbanks as arancher-friendly conservation toolin the American West, particu-larly in New Mexico.

Principal organizers of theevent were the Conservation Fund,which runs the Valle Grande GrassBank on Rowe Mesa near SantaFe, and the Quivira Coalition.Sponsors included the Conserva-tion Fund, Quivira, the NorthernNew Mexico Stockman’s Associa-tion, the Cooperative ExtensionService of New Mexico State Uni-versity, U.S. Forest Service, and

(Top) Ed Marston of HighCountry News. (Bottom)

Stewart Udall.

(Top) Nearly 200 people crowdinginto the lunch area. (Bottom) Drum

Hadley.

March 2001

13

The GrassbankConference(con’t from page 12)

the Malpai Borderlands Group. TheSanta Fe Community Foundation, theMcCune Charitable Foundation, theTurner Foundation, and the State ofNew Mexico Surface Water QualityBureau/U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency provided funding.

The Conservation Fund andQuivira will be publishing a summaryproceedings from the conference in April.If you would like to receive one, callQuivira.

(The pictures on these two pages are courtesy of Don Usner.)

(Left) There were many intense conversa-tions among participants during the breaks.(Below) Craig Allen of the USGS atBandelier, Bill de Buys of the ConservationFund and Conference Moderator, Bill Millerof the Malpai Borderlands Group, and BruceRunnels of the Nature Conservancy preparefor their panel discussion on What Condi-tions Suggest a Grassbank and How DoYou Design One?

Owen Lopez of the McCune Chari-table Foundation, Palemon Martinezof the Northern New MexicoStockman’s Association, BartMcGuire of the City of Tucson, GeraldChacon of the NMSU ExtensionService, and Bill de Buys during theirpanel discussion on How Do YouOrganize a Grassbank?

March 2001

14

For all of the contradic-tions and prejudices of the mod-ern environmental movement, oneof its principal achievements mustbe taken seriously by ranchers, fed-eral land managers, and anyoneelse involved with grazing—thatthe bar of environmental standardshas been raised high for legitimatereasons and is supported by a largemajority of Americans.

Moreover, this bar will notbe coming down, at least not veryfar, any time soon. As a result, it isin everyone’s interest to get aheadof this bar, and stay there.

Rising environmentalstandards are being borne by cityand rural dweller alike—byrancher, logger, constructionworker, and commuter. City folkface “No Burn” nights, water re-strictions, smog stations, no-smok-ing zones, rolling black-outs, land-use covenants, and hundreds ofother regulations.

The rising tide of restric-tions cannot be blamed on envi-ronmental extremists, who are,truthfully, too few in number toaffect significant change, or oncallous government bureaucrats,because government is almost al-ways reactive to circumstance (ex-pressed in the common lament,“Why does someone have to diebefore the government does some-thing?”).

Instead, the bar is beingpushed up voluntarily by manyhands—by soccer moms and work-at-home dads, by bankers and in-surance company executives, byteachers and scientists, by lawyers,farmers, musicians, hairdressers,couch potatoes, and tour guides.

By us. And the reasons for

change are easy to catalogue.Remember DDT? And

asbestos? And exploding rivers?Remember Love Canal and theExxon Valdez? Remember thePassenger Pigeon and the Dodobird? Remember Glen Canyon,and Dinosaur, and Hetch Hetchy(you do remember them, don’tyou)?

Remember UptonSinclair’s novel The Jungle? Pub-lished in 1906, it chronicled theappalling conditions insideChicago’s meat-packing industryin such shocking, and stomach-churning, detail that an outragedcitizenry provoked Congress intopassing the U.S. Pure Food andDrugs Act of 1906. By placingsignificant restrictions on the foodindustry, it became the first im-portant food safety law in U.S.history.

A law, by the way, enactedwithout the involvement of a singleenvironmental activist.

Looking BackLooking BackLooking BackLooking BackLooking Back“If we forget history,”

someone famous once said, “weare condemned to repeat it.” Thisis especially true for the AmericanWest, which has been strugglingwith the lessons of its history eversince it had one. Through forestfires, floods, droughts, gold fevers,land grants, land rushes, genocide,heroism, tragedy, lawlessness, co-operation, and countless cycles ofboom-and-bust, the West has tried,and mostly failed, to come to gripswith the highs and lows of thehuman behavior it inspires.

One mechanism inventedto grapple with the West’s turbu-

The FarHorizon

by Courtney Whiteby Courtney Whiteby Courtney Whiteby Courtney Whiteby Courtney White

“What goes around,comes around; and it’s allcoming back to me now.”

—————BBBBBlues songlues songlues songlues songlues song


March 2001

15


lent history is the much-discussedOld West / New West dichotomy.For example, in the last five yearsthere has been a great deal of talkabout how the “Old West,” domi-nated by the extractive industriesof logging, mining, and ranch-ing—the “Lords of Yesterday” ac-cording to one critic—is being re-placed by a “New West” domi-nated by the extractive industriesof recreation, subdivision, and glo-balization.

This debate has become arumble, with “custom and cul-ture” advocates struggling in thecourts and at the ballot box against“newcomers” awash in neweconomy money and a depletedsense of history. Old vs. New, Usvs. Them.

Unfortunately for thebrawlers, according to noted west-ern historian Alvin Josephy, Jr.,this Old West/New West conflictdoes not actually exist. Or, moreprecisely, it has always existed. AnOld West has been continuallyreplaced by a New West since therehas been a West at all.

In his memoir, A WalkToward Oregon (Knopf, 2000),Josephy notes that, in 1902, thewestern artist Frederic Remingtondespaired at the passing of the OneTrue West. “I knew the wild rid-ers and the vacant land were aboutto vanish forever,” wrote the fa-mous painter. “I saw the living,breathing end of three Americancenturies of smoke and dust andsweat, and now I see quite anotherthing where it all took place, butdoes not appeal to me.”

“I knew what Remingtonhad meant,” Josephy writes, “ butas a historian of the American West,

I also knew that, before and afterRemington, each generation in theWest had lamented in its own waythe passing of its Old West.”

Indians were replaced byexplorers, who were replaced bymountain men and missionaries,who were replaced by miners andsoldiers, who were replaced by set-tlers and sheriffs, followed by cow-boys, painters, movie stars, oil men,automobiles, tourists, backpack-ers, bureaucrats, environmental-ists, real estate speculators, latte,Land Rovers.

Every Old West has inevi-tably and inexorably been replacedby a New West.

At 85 years of age, it hap-pened to Josephy as well. “TheOld West that I had experiencedwas now gone too,” he writes,“changed by industrial and mili-tary centers, interstate highways,recreation developments, trophyranches and urban sprawl, confor-mity, high-tech pop culture, tele-vision, and economically stressedcattle and lumber operations strug-gling to survive against global com-petitors.”

And the rising bar of envi-ronmental standards.

“Components,” Josephyadds, “that will become someoneelse’s Old West.”

Resistance, he implies, isnot only futile, it is unhistorical.Right or wrong, good or bad,change happens, and it happensmore quickly than anyone cares toadmit, or can do anything to stop.

The Next WestThe Next WestThe Next WestThe Next WestThe Next WestIn October 2000, the

The Far Horizon(con’t from page 14)

“An Old West has beencontinually replaced by aNew West since therehas been a West at all.”

March 2001

16



Board of Directors of People forthe USA! (formerly known asPeople for the West!) voted to goout of business. A national organi-zation well-known as an aggressiveadvocate for states’ rights, privateproperty rights, and unrestraineddevelopment of natural resources,especially on public lands, PFUSA!led the charge against the environ-mental movement.

Whether they were con-demning the Endangered SpeciesAct, or fighting for relaxed govern-ment regulations, or stumping forthe privatization of federal lands,the leaders of PFUSA! struggledmightily to slow, or reverse, therising bar of environmental stan-dards. They did so with gusto,fiery rhetoric, and flashes of hu-mor.

And they failed.In explaining why they

voted to disband, the leaders ofPFUSA! cited declining member-ship and a shortage of reliable fund-ing (chiefly from corporationswhich profited by exploiting pub-lic lands). But there was anotherreason—they had become ananachronism in an age that nolonger shared their values.

Jeff Harris, Executive Di-rector of PFUSA!, admitted asmuch in a recent newsletter whenhe wrote, “Americans have em-braced the environmental ethic; itis part of our value system likemotherhood and apple pie.” (HighCountry News, 12/18/00)

This wasn’t a triumph ofenvironmental extremism either.Instead, it was an expression ofmainstream values changing color,of the old giving way to the new.

This was not an isolated

incident. Laura Skaer, ExecutiveDirector of the 106-year oldNorthwest Mining Association,was quoted in a newspaper re-cently as saying, “The public’s at-titudes have changed, and our in-dustry needs new approaches andnew solutions if we are going tohave a viable North American min-ing industry in the 21st century.”(Albuquerque Journal, 12/25/00)

There were other notablequotes from mining leaders in thearticle, including, “The public hasthe right to hold mining account-able,” and “Future legitimacy willrest on our contribution to sus-tainable development.”

Whatever THAT means.Skepticism aside, the

simple fact that industry leadersfeel compelled to even use the term“sustainable mining” is significant.It is an acknowledgement that theenvironmental bar not only restsin a high place, but that it is notcoming down. It is an admissionthat a new society, with new val-ues, is firmly in place.

History tells us that cus-tom and culture have never beenstatic; they constantly evolve, andfor a variety of reasons. For ranch-ers, and people who care about therelationship between ranching andenvironmental values, the ques-tion is—will ranching evolve withdirection and purpose, or will itfade away like the Dodo bird andthe Pony Express?

Or, as environmentalistDan Dagget puts it, explainingwhy he works closely with ranch-ers, “I’m not trying to save ranch-ing. I’m trying to help controlwhat comes next.”

“History tells us thatcustom and culture have

never been static; theyconstantly evolve, and fora variety of reasons. For

ranchers, and people whocare about the relationship

between ranching andenvironmental values, the

question is—will ranchingevolve with direction and

purpose, or will it fadeaway like the Dodo birdand the Pony Express?”

March 2001

17


Burden of ProofBurden of ProofBurden of ProofBurden of ProofBurden of ProofEd Marston, publisher of

High Country News, and self-titledobituary-writer for the Old West,proclaimed our time as the “Envi-ronmental Age” in a recent essay(1/15/01). By way of explanation,he writes, “We no longer reflex-ively choose to clear-cut and drilland graze wherever possible, justas we no longer light up on air-planes or assume that the onlygood wolf is a dead wolf. Theburden of proof—making the caseto mine or log—lies with naturalresource industries.”

This is news. Thirty yearsago, the burden of proof was onenvironmental activists to maketheir case in front of a skepticaljury. When the federal govern-ment proposed building two damsin the bottom of Grand CanyonNational Park in the 1960s, orwhen the Disney corporation pro-posed constructing a new ski re-sort in a remote Sierra Nevadavalley in the 1970s, the onus wason the environmental communityto stop them.

And they did. In one land-mark case after another, the activ-ists triumphed, aided by majormiscalculations on the other side(when the IRS cancelled the SierraClub’s tax-exempt status duringthe Grand Canyon dam fight, inwhat many saw as an act of retali-ation by the government, theClub’s membership shot throughthe roof).

Environmental groupswere both shaping and respondingto public opinion. That’s how wegot the Wilderness Act, and NEPA,and the ESA, and the Clean Airand Clean Water Acts—not by

pressure applied by a handful ofcrazy zealots, but through a delib-erate, and democratic, politicalprocess that weighed public opin-ion carefully. It is not a coinci-dence that most of these laws carrythe signature of a Republican presi-dent.

The values of our time haveshifted along with the demograph-ics, and will continue to do so.

Now it is ranching’s turn.The environmental bar has beenraised no less high for them thanany other group at work in theWest. And the burden of proof isbecoming just as painful. Take thecurrent round of litigation overgrazing in national forests, for ex-ample. The issue of contentioncenters on monitoring, or, rather,the lack of monitoring data. TheForest Service, by its own admis-sion, has not done a good job here.

Prior to the Environmen-tal Age, monitoring was not a par-ticularly important concern.Ranchers grazed pretty much wher-ever and however they wanted ontheir allotment, and their federaloverseers made only cursory ef-forts at documenting the effects ofgrazing on the land, and then usu-ally just to calculate utilizationrates. The idea that monitoringwould be a source of debate 20years ago was unimaginable.

Not any longer.Now, at nearly every meet-

ing I attend the bulk of the discus-sion centers on monitoring. I alsohear talk about inventorying,rangeland health, proper function-ing condition, TMDLs, watershedrestoration, riparian recovery, andso on.


“Environmental groupswere both shaping andresponding to publicopinion. That’s how wegot the Wilderness Act,and NEPA, and the ESA,and the Clean Air andClean Water Acts—not bypressure applied by ahandful of crazy zealots,but through adeliberate, and demo-cratic, political processthat weighed public opin-ion carefully. It is not acoincidence that most ofthese laws carry the sig-nature of a Republicanpresident.”

March 2001

18


“For anyone interested inmaintaining customs and

cultures, protectingendangered species, re-

storing rangelands, pro-tecting open space, mak-

ing a profit,producing food, or resolv-

ing conflicts, the radicalcenter is the logical place

to embrace change, ratherthan fight it, or succumb

to it.”


To their credit, manyranchers, especially those on pub-lic lands, understand the need formonitoring and are willing to faceincreased scrutiny. At the sametime, however, many ranchers dis-like what they see as the constantlyshifting sands under their feet.They want stability and unifor-mity in the regulations and stan-dards. They need targets to aim at.

Unfortunately, the onlyconstant in life is change. TheCurrent West is already being re-placed by the Next West; and theenvironmental bar continues torise.

The Radical CenterThe Radical CenterThe Radical CenterThe Radical CenterThe Radical CenterOne solution to this co-

nundrum is to work in the “radicalcenter,” a term coined by rancherBill McDonald of the innovativeMalpai Borderland Group. It re-fers to a meeting place where prac-tical solutions can be discussedand implemented by reasonablepeople—a place where extremistson both sides are not invited.

For historian and conser-vationist Bill deBuys, who foundedand directs the successful ValleGrande Grass Bank near Santa Fe,the radical center is the commonground where people with differ-ent backgrounds and values canwork together collaboratively.

There is a catch, however.He writes, “For ranchers

this means accepting a higher stan-dard of environmental perfor-mance; for environmentalists, itmeans approaching conservationby working constructively with thepeople who occupy and use theland; for bureaucrats, it means fo-cusing on producing tangible re-

sults, not merely defending proce-dure, and for all it means the shar-ing of authority and responsibil-ity.”

This is a very importantparagraph, and I urge you to readit again. It is a roadmap to theNext West.

For anyone interested inmaintaining customs and cultures,protecting endangered species, re-storing rangelands, protectingopen space, making a profit, pro-ducing food, or resolving conflicts,the radical center is the logicalplace to embrace change, ratherthan fight it, or succumb to it.

It is the only place wherewe will find what author WallaceStegner once called the “nativehome of hope.”

tivity of the monitoring work, haveyet to be worked out.

Eventually, Cibola couldprovide other services, such as ar-chaeological surveys, range consul-tation, and monitoring training.

But for now, we will con-centrate on assessments and moni-toring, and hope that by our workwe will help fulfill the mission ofthe Quivira Coalition.

March 2001

19


recover from it provided that thedisturbance is not too great. Theimpacts of grazing are not limited tothe plants that are eaten, however.There are other factors to consider:water, soils, nutrients, other plants,wildlife and a host of organisms thatinter-relate with all of them. Live-stock are only one piece of a muchlarger puzzle that must fit togetherif ranching is to be sustainable.

The difficulty is that aridand semiarid rangelands are highlyvariable over time and space. Whichplants grow, and how much they grow,depends not only on how much rainfalls but when and how quickly itfalls, and on the weather that followsit. Rainfall is notoriously spotty.Droughts are a normal part of theclimate. Until the twentieth century,fires were also normal. These are“disturbance-prone” ecosystems,adapted to withstand such extremestresses. Because water and nutrientsare scarce, plants survive much closerto their limits of tolerance than inother areas.

Therefore, plants must beable to withstand drought and takeadvantage of rain when it finally ar-rives. Different plants will grow de-pending on whether the rain arrivesin summer or winter, in large quanti-ties or small. Over thousands of yearsof evolution, the vegetation of theseareas has adapted to reflect these cir-cumstances. The effects of distur-bances on the land depend on timing(when they happen), intensity (howsevere they are), and frequency (howoften they recur). Grazing is a distur-bance that can be managed in theseterms.

Grazing as a Natural ProcessGrazing as a Natural ProcessGrazing as a Natural ProcessGrazing as a Natural ProcessGrazing as a Natural ProcessGrazing is a natural process

which has been occurring for millionsof years. From the fossil record it hasbeen determined that grasses and graz-ers evolved together some 45 millionyears ago, and that both spread sig-

nificantly during the Miocene pe-riod. Having coevolved, grazers andgrasses are adapted to each other.Grazing animals have developed thecapacity to derive energy from plantmaterial that humans and most othermammals cannot directly consume.Grasses have developed the capacityto recoverfrom grazing(and otherdisturbancescommon totheir environ-ments, likefire).

What exactlymakes theserelationshipsm u t u a l l yb e n e f i c i a l ?S c i e n t i s t shave yet toanswer this question conclusively.Some grasses appear to compensatefor the tissue loss by growing morequickly afterwards. But a great dealdepends on how much tissue is lost,when it is lost in the plants’ lifecycle, and whether defoliation oc-curs only once or multiple times.All of these variables make it diffi-cult to generalize about the wayanimals graze plants. Science hasnot yet discovered how to controlfor them all in measuring the im-pacts of grazing.

Imagine a perennial grassplant over the course of a year. When-ever water or heat are insufficient, theplant is dormant. Grazing during thedormant season is unlikely to causedamage, because the leaves are notliving tissue at this time. Whenmoisture and temperature condi-tions reach certain levels (differentfor different species of grass), theplant enters a period of growth.Below ground, the plant’s roots be-

The New RanchHandbook(con’t from page 1)

Grass growing in a cow hoof print.(Photo courtesy of Jim Winder.)

March 2001

20


The New RanchHandbook


gin to grow, drawing minerals andnutrients from the soil. Aboveground, the leaves begin to “greenup,” beginning at the base of theplant. New leaves form and some

portion of the old leaves regenerate,turning from brown to green.

Throughout the growingseason, the plant responds to chang-ing conditions of moisture and sun-light. If conditions permit, theplant continues photosynthesisthrough the growing season untiltemperatures drop again in the fall.It produces enough food to supportgrowth in the roots and the leaves, aswell as to develop tillers and/or seedstalks. It stores up energy for theupcoming dormant season. It flow-ers and sets seed. Eventually theplant returns to dormancy, its leaves

again turning brown. The health orvigor of the plant depends on itsability to produce enough food dur-ing the growing season to survivethrough the dormant season andresume growth when conditions areagain favorable.

In commencing to grow inthe spring, the plant utilizes storedenergy to produce new above groundgrowth. It thus takes a risk, so tospeak, that the new leaves will beable to produce enough additionalenergy to replenish its supplies. Atthis early stage of growth, then, theplant is more vulnerable to leaf lossthan it is later in the growing season.

Grazing disturbs the plantby removing leaf tissue. This can begood, bad, or indifferent for theplant as a whole. If very little leaf isremoved, the effects of grazing maybe negligible. A more severe, singlegrazing may slow growth in theroots, and/or accelerate the growthof leaves, but recovery is likely ifgrazing does not recur for one to twogrowing seasons. Repeated defolia-tions in the same growing season,however, can set the plant back formany years to come. These effectsalso depend on the plant species inquestion. In extreme conditions, agrazing animal may remove nearlyall of the plant’s above-groundgrowth, but normally this does notoccur. Cattle can barely graze closerthan an inch or two to the groundbecause of the shape of their mouths,and they will not defoliate a plantcompletely unless there is no otherfeed available. The majority of plantbiomass in grasslands is actuallybelow ground, completely beyondthe reach of grazers.

Grasses have several traitsthat enable them to tolerate graz-ing, and in some circumstances tobenefit from it. Most importantly,they produce more leaf area than isnecessary for optimal photosynthe-

The Goal: Rangeland HealthWhat are the goals of the New Ranch? How can we define

the desired condition of rangelands? Until very recently, there wasno comprehensive answer to these questions. For nearly a century,different agencies employed different standards and measures. Rangescientists used their own criteria, while biologists used others.

In 1994, a committee of the National Academy of Sciencespublished Rangeland Health: New Methods to Classify, Inventory,and Monitor Rangelands. They concluded that rangeland health canand should be defined and measured in terms of three criteria:

•Degree of soil stability and watershed function. Range-lands should not be eroding, and they should capture and retainwater rather than shed it as run-off.

•Integrity of nutrient cycles and energy flows. Rangelandsshould support plants that capture energy from the sun and cyclenutrients from the soil.

•Presence of functioning recovery mechanisms. Range-lands should be resistant to extreme disturbances and resilient tochange—that is, they should be capable of recovering from moreordinary disturbances.

These may seem rather simple or incomplete, but they arenot. They were devised to provide a basis for consistent, nationalrangeland assessment, relevant and applicable to all present andfuture publics. This is their value. By understanding rangelands interms of fundamental ecological processes, these criteria encompassvirtually all others we might put forth: wildlife habitat, recreation,food and fiber production, scientific research, education, open space,etc.

March 2001

21


sis, meaning that some leaf area canbe removed without damageYounger leaves photosynthesizemore efficiently than older ones,and defoliation of older leaves canexpose younger leaves to greater sun-light. Many grasses have growthpoints very close to ground level,where they are unlikely to be bittenoff by large-mouthed grazers likecattle.

Until recently, it was believedthat grazing caused grasses to directenergy stored in their roots up intoleaf growth. More recent researchsuggests that this is not the case, al-though the precise mechanisms ofrecovery remain obscure. For now,the best conclusion is that the moreleaf area that remains after grazing,the faster recovery occurs.

The Spatial and TemporalThe Spatial and TemporalThe Spatial and TemporalThe Spatial and TemporalThe Spatial and TemporalDistribution of Water andDistribution of Water andDistribution of Water andDistribution of Water andDistribution of Water andNutrientsNutrientsNutrientsNutrientsNutrients

How plants respond to graz-ing also depends on larger conditionsin the area: the other plants present,topography and soils, or whether it’sa dry year or a wet one. Althoughthese conditions can vary widely fromyear to year, and they can some-times change abruptly, they gener-ally develop over many years’ time.

Two ecological processesstrongly determine the vigor and com-position of vegetation, especially inarid and semiarid rangelands: theflow or cycling of water and nutri-ents. Put simply, the plants on arange—what they are and how wellthey are growing—are a reflection ofthese underlying ecological pro-cesses. The goal is to develop meansof managing grazing for improvedwater and nutrient availability.

Plants require water and nu-trients for growth. These are notstatic quantities: they increase anddecrease, sometimes rapidly, andthey move around. The issue is not

simply how much moisture or nu-trients there are, but whether theyare available to plants when theyneed them. In arid and semiaridregions, small changes in the avail-ability of water and nutrients canhave dramatic effects on vegetation.The nutrients contained in a cow’sdung can significantly increase ger-mination rates, for example. A smallrelief feature can capture extra run-off and allow a dif-ferent communityof vegetation to de-velop. The sensi-tivity of vegetationto water and nutri-ent availability isboth a caution andan opportunity tomanagement. Mis-takes can be gravein their conse-quences, but smallimprovements can also ramifythrough the landscape and have sig-nificant beneficial effects. No onecan control the rain, but manage-ment decisions can affect how muchof the rain that does fall will benefitthe local ecosystem.

The Water Cycle. Mois-ture is scarce in arid and semiaridareas and precipitation is highly vari-able. The key issue is how much ofthe total precipitation is retained inthe system and for how long, be-cause this determines the effective-ness of the moisture: how much useit can be put to by plants. A second,related issue is erosion: where ero-sion is high, water retention tendsto be low.

Vegetation strongly affectsthe distribution of water in spaceand time. In the absence of vegeta-tion, water hits the ground surfaceat a high rate of speed. The impactdislodges fine soil particles, whichthen clog the pores of the soil, greatlyreducing infiltration. This, in turn,


An example of an area on SandiaPueblo with a poor water cycle.(Photo courtesy of Kirk Gadzia.)

March 2001

22


accelerates erosional processes. Soilparticles attach to the water mol-ecules and are transported downhillin run-off, reducing the quality ofthe soil that remains. In extremecases, a thin crusty surface (“cap-

ping”) develops which encouragesrun-off and inhibits plant establish-ment, reinforcing the cycle of degra-dation.

If a raindrop hits plants orlitter, on the other hand, the impacton the soil is greatly diminished. Evena thin cover of litter will protect soilfrom capping and reduce erosion. Liveplants intercept water both from thesky and running off from higherground. By slowing its progress, theplants diminish the water’s erosivepower. Studies indicate that smallincreases in the basal cover of plantscan dramatically decrease rates of run-off. Plants also help to increase theinfiltration of water into the soil.The leaves of grass plants catch wa-ter and deliver it to the base of theplant, where it is unlikely to disruptthe soil upon impact. Roots openpores in the ground and supportcommunities of insects, fungi andbacteria that create cavities and tun-nels for water to pass through. Thedifference is especially pronouncedwhen rainfall is torrential, as inSouthwestern summer monsoons.

The more water that is re-tained in the soil, the more resilientthe system will be to extremes ofrainfall or drought. Floods will be

less damaging, because the vegeta-tion and soil will slow and diminishthe overall amount of run-off.Droughts will be less damaging,because the water in the ground willprolong the life of plants during dry

periods. Ap r o p e r l yfunctioningwa t e r shedcan makethe differ-ence be-t w e e nplants sur-viving adrought ornot.

The goalcan be expressed simply: capture asmuch of the rain that falls as pos-sible, retain that water in the soil, sothat it can be safely released to plantsand downstream areas over time.

The importance of waterdistribution is illustrated most dra-matically by riparian areas. Theseare places where water runs in largequantities, concentrating its effec-tiveness in small areas. Generallyspeaking, riparian areas also receivenutrients from elsewhere, trans-ported by the water. The combinedeffect of these processes is to makeriparian areas significantly richer inthe key factors for plant growth:water and nutrients. They are thusmore dynamic, from an ecologicalpoint of view. Especially in theSouthwest, riparian plant speciesare adapted to disturbance, particu-larly in the form of flooding. Takentogether, these factors enable ripar-ian areas to recover from distur-bance more quickly than uplands,and to produce much larger vol-umes of forage. They are highlyresilient, ecologically speaking. Theyare also key sites for range improve-ment.



Where vegetation is dense, waterflows are tortuous. Erosive energy isdissipated, and more water absorbsinto the ground as it moves acrossthe land. (Source: Ludwig et al.1997:15, Landscape Ecology,Function and Management: Prin-ciples from Australia’s Rangelands.)

March 2001

23

The Nutrient Cycle. Thenutrient cycle is more difficult to seethan the water cycle. It consists in themovement of nitrogen, phosphorus,and other minerals from the soil,through plants, and eventually backinto the soil. The more effectively thenutrient cycle functions, the morenutrients are available to support plantgrowth. Nitrogen availability canlimit plant growth in desert ecosys-tems almost as much as water does,and in some cases perhaps more. Evensmall differences in available nutri-ents can affect what plants grow, ifany.

Decomposers—especiallyinsects—are a key link in both thewater and nutient cycles. Termitescan dramatically increase water infil-tration rates by opening pores in thesoil. Without plants to feed on, ter-mites disappear and the soil becomesmore compact and impermeable.Termites actually consume the ma-jority of dead plant matter in South-western deserts. Without their activ-ity, much of the nutrients in deadplants would remain trapped in stand-ing matter, unavailable to other plants.Eventually it would escape into theair through oxidation. Instead it isconsumed by termites and movesdownward to the surface and subsur-face of the ground. The termites arethen consumed by predators like ants,who return the nutrients to the soil intheir excrement. Research in theChihuahuan desert suggests that thecycling of nitrogen is more importantthan new inputs of nitrogen fromrainfall, and that a significant fractionof the total nitrogen cycled passesthrough termites and their preda-tors.

In the passage of nutrientsfrom the soil to plants, other organ-isms also play roles. Tiny fungiform symbiotic relationships withplant roots, assisting in the uptakeof water and nutrients from thesurrounding soil. These mycor-

rhizal fungi help to increase thesurvival of seedlings and the growthof mature plants. But they existonly in relation to certain kinds ofplants, including grasses and peren-nial forbs. If their host plants disap-pear, so do they, and in their ab-sence, other types of plants (shrubsand annual forbs, for example) willhave a greaterchance of estab-lishing.

Di s tu r -bances like graz-ing and fire alsoplay a role in thenutrient cycle byreducing thestanding crop ofold plant mate-rial and bringingit into contactwith the ground,either as manure, ash, or by tram-pling. Like all disturbances, thesecan have positive or negative effectsdepending on timing, intensity, andfrequency.

The nutrient cycle isstrongly affected by the water cycle,for better and for worse. Plants arethe mechanism that enables the twocycles to reinforce each other. Anarea with good plant cover will re-tain more water and cycle morenutrients, allowing the plants tosurvive droughts better and to pro-duce still more vegetation in goodyears. If the soil is hard and bare, onthe other hand, less moisture pen-etrates into the ground, which driesout more quickly and makes plantgrowth more difficult, which in turndiminishes the amount of nutrientsbeing cycled in the area. Plants andlitter also have a strong effect onground surface temperatures andevaporation rates. Bare ground ishotter, drier, more subject to tem-perature extremes, and less likely topermit germination of new plants.



Capping. (Photo courtesy of KirkGadzia.)

March 2001

24

It is also poor habitat for microor-ganisms and insects that enhancenutrient cycling.

The processes that deter-mine water and nutrient availabilitycome together at the surface of theground. If the soil is stable and thewatershed is functioning properly,the potential for long-term sustain-

able production of forageis good. Chances are thatthe range will be able torecover from disturbanceslike drought and grazing.Soil loss by wind and wa-ter erosion, on the otherhand, weakens the resil-ience of the system, mak-ing it vulnerable to distur-bances. Productivity willgradually diminish, usu-ally for a long time.

Thresholds andThresholds andThresholds andThresholds andThresholds andMonitoringMonitoringMonitoringMonitoringMonitoring

Thresholds. Howare we to understand thesemutually reinforcing cyclesof improvement or degra-dation? In recent decades,scientists have recognizedthat arid and semiaridrangelands do not fit the

classical, Clementsian model of suc-cession and retrogression; rather,they are subject to abrupt shiftsamong a number of vegetation com-munities. The factors that causethese shifts are complex and non-linear; changes occur when criticalthresholds are crossed. An exampleis the shift from grasslands toshrublands in the SouthwesternUnited States. Ecologists recognizeseveral contributing factors: over-grazing, fire suppression, drought, achange in seasonal rainfall patterns,and an increase in atmospheric CO2

levels. There seems to be no way toisolate a single one as the cause;different combinations may haveoccurred in different places. In any

case, once the shift to shrublandsoccurs, grasslands do not reappearon their own. Some threshold iscrossed, beyond which the changebecomes self-reinforcing. Oncemesquites reach a certain density,for example, abrupt decreases in grasscover and increases in erosion havebeen observed. Once the grassesdecrease below some amount ofcover, there isn’t enough fuel for afire. Without fire, the mesquitespersist and dominate further. Rest-ing the land by excluding livestockdoes little or nothing to restoregrasses.

The high degree of variabil-ity in arid and semiarid rangelands,combined with the issue of thresh-olds, makes management a very diffi-cult challenge. The same grazingpressure can have little effect in a yearof good rainfall, but cause lastingdamage during a drought. It is mucheasier to prevent an area from crossinga threshold than it is to reverse thechange after it has occurred. Butscience has not yet learned to predictexactly where these thresholds are.

Monitoring. The water andnutrient cycles, and their effects onplants, are difficult to observe ormeasure directly. Most of a grassplant is below the ground, in theroot system. Nutrients like nitro-gen and phosphorus are invisible tothe eye. Monitoring is a way ofmeasuring ecological processes in-directly. The processes themselvescannot be observed, but indicatorsof the processes can be observed andmeasured. Litter cover, for example,is an indicator of the nutrient cycle,because for nutrients to cycle, or-ganic material must be producedand then returned to the soil fordecomposition.

Monitoring programs can bedesigned to measure almost anything,to almost any degree of precision.




Rio Puerco near Cuba.(Photo courtesy of Courtney White.)

March 2001

25

They can be as simple as a series offixed points where you take photo-graphs every year. Often they aremore labor-intensive and require sev-eral years of committed effort to yieldtheir full benefit in improved infor-mation. For these reasons, it is veryimportant to choose one’s monitor-ing objectives carefully, paying closeattention to particular circumstancesand needs. Time invested in gooddesign can dramatically increase theefficiency and utility of monitoring.

Above all, monitoring mustbe: 1) consistent; 2) practicable—that is, not too time-consuming ordifficult; and 3) related to manage-ment goals and activities. The pointof monitoring is simple: it providesfeedback that is timely and objective.Monitoring data can reveal the effectsof management decisions well beforethey are apparent to the naked eye,greatly increasing one’s ability to avoidlasting damage and to encourage rangeimprovement. Every manager learnsfrom experience, but good monitor-ing allows that learning to happenmore quickly and systematically.

New Ranch ManagementNew Ranch ManagementNew Ranch ManagementNew Ranch ManagementNew Ranch ManagementBy controlling the timing,

intensity, and frequency of grazing,the New Ranch ensures that range-lands recover from the disturbancethat grazing inevitably causes. Byfocusing on the ecological processesthat sustain range productivity, theNew Ranch works to enhance andrestore habitat for wildlife, properfunctioning of watersheds, and—notleast—economic vitality for the ranchoperation.

Two primary tools are avail-able: disturbance and rest. Some dis-turbances can be manipulated, likegrazing and (to some degree) fire.Others, like drought and flood, arelargely beyond the manager’s control.The central principles of New Ranchmanagement are to use the tools skill-fully (control grazing and rest) and to

plan for the disturbances that cannotbe controlled. By exercising greatercontrol over grazing pressure, andplanning one’s management to adaptto changing conditions, the NewRanch achieves sustainability, botheconomic and ecological. The firstlesson is to control the timing, inten-sity, and frequency of grazing pres-sure.

Intensity. Intensity refersto how much biomass is removedfrom a plant by livestock. It mea-sures the percentage of net primaryproduction that is channeled intoherbivores rather than consumed byfire, oxidation, or decomposers. In-tensity is a function of three vari-ables: the number of animal units ina pasture, the length of time they arethere, and the size of the pasture.To manage intensity, therefore, re-quires a tool with three compo-nents: one for animals, one for time,and one for area. Animal-unit-months, or AUMs, is inadequate forthis, because it has only two compo-nents: one for animals and one fortime. Its time component, more-over, is rather gross: a month is notvery precise. Another conventionaltool, stocking rates, also has onlytwo components: one for animalsand one for area. Head per section,or acres per head, takes no accountof time. Utilization rates—whichsuperficially resemble intensity—have none of the three components.A certain utilization rate may be agood goal for management, but it isnot a practical tool. Something elseis necessary to translate the goal intoa management strategy.

Animal-days per acre, orADAs, contains all three compo-nents necessary to measure andmanage intensity. Adjustment mustbe made for the class of livestockbeing grazed. Once this adjust-ment is made, animal-days per acre



“Resting the land byexcluding livestock does littleor nothing to restore grasses.”

March 2001

26

is exactly what it says: animal units,multiplied by days in the pasture,divided by the size of the pasture inacres. ADAs can be measured quicklyand easily with practice, and theyare both a flexible and relatively

precise tool for managing grazing.The limitation of ADAs as a man-agement tool is that they do notaccount for the other factors thatdetermine the impacts of grazing:timing and frequency.

Timing. During the grow-ing season, the challenge is to con-trol the impact of grazing in such away that the grasses have time torecover. It’s impossible to knowwhen it will rain, how much, or howlong the growing season will last. Sothere’s no telling exactly how long itwill take for grasses to recover fromgrazing. But the principles of grow-ing season grazing management are

fairly simple: 1) the more leaf areathat’s grazed off, the longer recoverywill take, and 2) a plant that isgrazed again before recovering willstore less energy in its tissues andwill weaken over time. Finally, graz-

ing should not happen at the sametime of year every year in any givenpasture. If it does, the palatablespecies that are young and green atthat time will bear a disproportion-ate share of the impact and willeventually decline relative to otherspecies.

Control over grazing boilsdown to control over the distributionof livestock across the range and overtime. The most common way to dothis is with fencing, but there areother ways to control the distributionof livestock, as well. Mineral blockshave been used this way for decades.




Overgrazing and OverrestOvergrazing occurs when a severely grazed plant does not have time to recover before being grazed

again. A plant that is grazed once or twice, then allowed to rest for the remainder of the growing season,is very likely to recover completely. If it is grazed repeatedly, it will have less time and reduced resourcesfor recovery. The health of the plant depends on both its leaves and its roots, and an overgrazed plant tendsto have shallower roots, weakening its ability to recover from subsequent grazing events or to withstand otherdisturbances such as drought. A downward spiral can result: less forage for cows, who then impact eachplant more severely, leading to still less forage, and so on. Livestock, plants, soils, watersheds, wildlife, andranchers all suffer when overgrazing occurs.

Note that the critical issue is time. The number of cattle in a pasture is important, too, but onlybecause higher stocking rates make it less likely that a grazed plant will have time to recover. Lower stockingrates make it more likely. Moreover, what makes for overgrazing changes from year to year and season toseason. In a good year, with more moisture, plants recover more quickly; in a drought, they recover slowly.So even a lightly stocked pasture may be overgrazed in a very dry year, whereas a heavily stocked one mightnot experience overgrazing in a very wet year. Control of timing is critical to avoiding overgrazing.

Overrest is, for certain grass species at least, the opposite of overgrazing. It occurs when disturbanceis absent for such a long time that the accumulated growth of past years prevents the plants from cyclingenough energy to remain vital. The old leaves give the plants a gray tone; they shade out areas where newplants could otherwise germinate; root systems slowly contract. Overrest can occur even in the presenceof livestock, since decadent plants are not palatable and may be avoided.

In the long run, overrested areas are prone to a similar fate as overgrazed ones. Eventually, somedisturbance will occur—a drought or a fire, for instance—and the weakened plants may be unable torecover, leading to more bare soil, erosion, etc. (The same risk attends forests where fire has been suppressedfor too long.) In ecosystems adapted to disturbance, managers must negotiate carefully between overgrazingand overrest.

March 2001

27

Where water can be turned on andoff, it can also be used to control thelocation of grazing pressure. Herdingis an ancient technique that is cur-rently being reborn in a few areas.Riders and dogs move and control theherd. There are also skilled practitio-ners of stockmanship, who have mas-tered the art of “low-stress” livestockhandling. The effectiveness of thesetools depends on the terrain and veg-etation of a given range, the breedingand disposition of animals, and theinclinations and training of manag-ers.

Density. Perhaps the mostcontroversial issue in livestock distri-bution concerns density. Should live-stock graze together in a herd, orshould they be spread out across therange? For decades, ranchers andrange conservationists have workedto spread cattle out in order to utilizeforage more evenly across large pas-tures. The New Ranchers have cho-sen instead to amalgamate theirherds and work them as a single unitor, in certain circumstances, as twoherds. The benefits they attributeto this are several. A single herd ismore easily monitored. This de-creases labor and other costs associ-ated with routine care. Cattle in aherd are also better able to fend offpredators than if they were spreadout, just as wild ungulates are.

There is also a great deal ofdisagreement over short durationgrazing, particularly regarding itseffects on carrying capacity. Judg-ing from the scientific literature andthe practices of the New Ranch, thesafest conclusion seems to be thatgreater control over grazing in all itsdimensions—timing, intensity, andfrequency—may increase the pro-ductivity of the land, allowing forstocking rate increases over time.

Planning. New Ranchersare unanimous in saying that plan-ning has been critical to their suc-cesses. Not only does good plan-

ning improve management, it alsoprovides a greater sense of controlover one’s livelihood, which can bean important boost to morale in abusiness characterized by uncer-tainty and risk.

Plans should be flexible, butalways ready for theworst. In arid andsemiarid regions,drought is a commonoccurrence. Over a29-year period at theJornada Experimen-tal Range, 14 yearswere sufficiently drythat the range pro-duced about half ofthe average forageyield. In roughterms, forage was halfof normal half of thetime.

The centraltask of planning is toallocate grazing pres-sure. This includeswhen the grazing willoccur, at what inten-sity, and for howlong. But planningis not complete untilprovision is made tomonitor the effects of managementactions and thereby learn from them.Grazing is a much more compli-cated process than meets the eye,and our knowledge of how it affectsrangelands is far from complete.Careful, on-going monitoringcomplements the general principlesdiscussed earlier and enables themanager to apply them, flexibly andcreatively, on the ground. It com-pletes the loop of education, en-abling the land to teach us how tomanage it better. Without moni-toring, mistakes may go unnoticeduntil it is too late to minimize theconsequences, while successes maybe misinterpreted.


Kirk Gadzia indicates the spacebetween perennial plants on grazed

land (above) and ungrazed land(below). These areas are about 15

yards apart. The ungrazed land hasnot been used in 40 years. (Photos

courtesy of Courtney White.)

Coalition QuiviraThe

551 Cordova Road, #423Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

UPCOMING EVENTS

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDSanta Fe, NM

Permit No. 523

Collaborative Stewardship At Work: a two-day “Unconference”April 27 - 28 (Fri-Sat), 2001

Best Western Kachina Lodge, Taos, New MexicoThis FREE conference will highlight the innovative, collaborative, and community-driven work being

done to restore environmental and economic vitality on public and private land in northern New Mexico.In the mid-1990s, after years of conflict, residents decided to open a dialogue with the staff of the Camino

Real District of the U.S. Forest Service in an attempt to find a better way of managing, and restoring, the landthey all shared. They chose cooperation over confrontation, and found a willing partner in the Forest Service.Together, they called their work Collaborative Stewardship.

We have planned this conference in order to share the lessons learned from this success story, and toencourage others to follow a similar path. It is organized around three topics vital to the future of the communitiesof the region: WATER, TIMBER, AND GRAZING—which will be discussed in half-day sessions. The focusof each session will be innovation. Speakers include: Lynda Prim, the Farm Connection; Paula Garcia, the NewMexico Acequia Association; Brett Olsen, lawyer; Henry Lopez, USFS; Max Cordova, La Montana de Truchas;Ike De Vargas, La Compania Ocho; Kurt Winchester, USFS; Jan-Willem Jansens, Commonground; VirgilTrujillo, Ghost Ranch; Joe Torres, Valle Vidal Grazing Association; Courtney White, the Quivira Coalition; WillBarnes, The Conservation Fund; Matt Mitchell, organic beef rancher; and others. For more information, callCourtney, (505) 820-2544.

Herding ClinicsApril 30 - May 5, 2001

The Quivira Coalition will be offering two, three-day clinics on the principles of low-stress livestockmanagement (sometimes referred to as the “Bud Williams” method). These are hands-on clinics. Participantswill get one-on-one training with the instructors and the cattle. Planning for a successful herding operation willalso be discussed. Session I will be held April 30-May 2 (Mon-Wed) and will emphasize the fundamentals.Session II will be May 3-5 (Thurs-Sat) and will emphasize advanced techniques.

Both sessions will be held at the Ghost Ranch conference center, located 60 miles northwest of Santa Fe.The instructors, Tim McGaffic, Steve Allen, and Guy Glosson, all have extensive experience with low-

stress methods of livestock management, including herding.The cost of EACH SESSION will be $300 per person, which includes the instruction fee, room and board

at Ghost Ranch for three days and nights, a copy of Burt Smith’s book Moving ‘Em, and other educationalmaterials.

Hurry! Space is VERY LIMITED. Last year, we sold out in a matter of weeks (and without muchadvertising). For reservations, call Courtney at (505) 820-2544.

Documents

The New Ranch Handbook - Savory Institute