Editor’s note: This is the third story in a series exploring public lands grazing in the West, using the Tongue District of the Bighorn National Forest in north-central Wyoming as a case study.

How important is public lands grazing in the West?

Just ask the thousands of ranchers who graze cattle and sheep on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, state land commissions and other agencies.

Read ranch listings in magazines and on websites. It’s common to see wording like this: “The ranch — owner-rated at 350 cow-calf pairs — is composed of 5,332 deeded acres, 6,613 BLM lease acres and 160 State of Wyoming lease acres.”

And visit with ag lenders, who loan money to producers based, in part, on how many animal unit months (AUMs) their BLM, USFS and state permits allow. Many lenders have changed this practice, and land brokers say an increasing number of buyers are seeking ranches consisting of mostly, if not all, deeded acreage because of the increasing uncertainty that comes with public lands grazing.

That same unpredictability has put thousands of ranchers on edge, including some who graze livestock on the Tongue District of the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming, which has been embroiled in controversy over grazing for three decades.

Because recently adopted grazing standards aren’t meeting USFS standards and guidelines, the district has slashed the number of AUMs by 53% since 2001 — from 30,119 to 14,216.

Bad feelings

That percentage could climb even higher this year because five of the approximate 30 permits that allow cattle and sheep grazing on 300,000 mountainous acres are out of compliance. Three of those are held by the family of Chas Kane, a longtime Sheridan, Wyo., cattle producer who has been in the center of the dispute since day one.

Kane did not return phone calls from Western Farmer-Stockman, but son John Kane shared strong opinions about the USFS as he drove to the mountain last summer to check cattle.

“There are some years the mountain gets used harder than others because of things like moisture, but I can say that our range is not consistently overgrazed,” Kane says. “I don’t think there’s any permittee up there who wants to overgraze any pastures. As land managers, we have to take care of the land, or you won’t have grass.”

Kane admits his family has been at odds with the USFS for years, which has led to legal battles, and he believes both the agency and his family have contributed to the tension.

“It takes two to fight, and both parties could have better cooperated for the benefit of the range,” says Kane, who then emphasizes: “The Forest Service says it wants you up there; that they support grazing. But I don’t feel they really mean what they say, which has created hard feelings against the agency. They are saying one thing, but they mean something else.”

A permit held by Sheridan County rancher Norman Schreibeis and his son, Milan, is also in danger because of non-compliance, as is a permit held by the Bruce Sheeley family. Schreibeis and his son declined to comment, but Sheeley was outspoken against USFS.

“We’re doing our best to meet standards, but nothing seems to be working,” says Sheeley, whose family has grazed cattle on the forest since the early 1900s. “We believe the standards now in place cannot be met.”

Sheeley and Kane say their families have always tried to be good stewards of the land and work well with USFS, but things began changing in the late 1980s.

“That’s when the huge controversy over grazing started, and communications have basically broken down between some ranchers and the Forest Service,” Sheeley says. “We’re trying to find common ground and make it work, but dealing with federal bureaucrats is extremely difficult. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s because these young kids come out of college with range management degrees and think they know everything there is to know about managing the range, and suddenly you have problems.”

Other permittees who don’t share these views say a minority of ranchers who are fighting USFS are hindering efforts to move forward in a positive direction. They also say that many areas of the forest have been overgrazed for decades, which has caused long-term resource damage.

On the flip side, they say, some agency folks have tried to work cooperatively with permittees, while others have taken the my-way-or-the-highway approach, which has added to the polarization. Read more on their views in the coming months.

Permittees face huge cuts in AUMs

Some number crunching reveals why families in the West who depend on public lands grazing are concerned. Grazing use on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management has declined from 18.2 million animal unit months in 1954 to 7.9 million AUMs in 2013 — a 57% cut.

The number of cattle and sheep that graze on lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service dropped from 4.8 million in 1947 to 1.8 million in 2013, a 63% cut. That percentage is even higher because today’s numbers reflect the addition of national grasslands, which were not under USFS management in 1947, says Tom McClure, USFS range program manager for the Rocky Mountain region.

A Colorado State University study finds 22,434, or 21%, of the 106,858 producers in eight Western states held permits to graze livestock on BLM- and USFS-managed lands in 2002. Likely, all 22,434 have endured cuts, some of them drastic, like those faced by longtime Sheridan, Wyo., rancher Chas Kane and sons John and David.

“We’ve taken serious cuts, and we’re still under the gun,” says John Kane, who notes the number of cattle they run on the Tongue District has been slashed from about 1,000 to 450.  Also, the time their cattle can spend on the mountain has been cut from four to three months.

If those trends continue, Kane predicts the family will have to sell some property for rural subdivisions.

Some local ranchers who hold permits to graze on the mountain say permittees like the Kanes and others who aren’t willing to work with the agency make life difficult for everyone.

Kane, however, disagrees, saying: “We have tried working with the Forest Service. But it’s our feeling they don’t want any cattle on the mountain, and that they are pitting user groups against each other to achieve this.”

Clarke McClung, who retired in 2014 as Tongue District ranger, and rangeland specialist David Beard wouldn’t talk about the Kanes or other ranchers at odds with the agency, but they both emphasized that the agency supports grazing on the district as long as guidelines are being met. They also say they’ve tried hard to work with all permittees, whether in the field, at meetings or during mediation. “We’ve invited permittees to join in range monitoring, but it’s been hit-and-miss,” McClung says.