Editor’s note: This is the 13th and final 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. All of the stories can be accessed at farmprogress.com/rangewars.

What can ranchers, agency personnel, ag organizations, mediators, Extension specialists and others learn from disputes over public lands grazing in the West?

How can this knowledge help avoid such disputes in the first place, and how can it help resolve differences when they do arise?

WATCHFUL EYE: Will scenes like this—a cowboy looking over his cattle on Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest—continue across federal and state lands in the West? It’s ultimately the decision of Congress and state legislatures, but some ranchers interviewed for this series agree that permittees themselves can do their part by being good stewards of the land and working cooperatively with agencies and the public.

One thing is clear: it only takes a couple of in-your-face livestock permittees and a couple of my-way-or-the-highway forest or range managers to make it nearly impossible for everyone to move forward in positive ways.

If neither party is willing to compromise, if neither party is willing to be flexible and if neither party truly wants to listen before being heard, permittees are at stake of not only giving up animal unit months, but relinquishing something perhaps even bigger - public support.

Agencies, meanwhile, lose credibility and trust, which further strains their relationships with ranchers.

Those are among the findings of a 13-month-long Western Farmer-Stockman examination of the Tongue District of the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming, which has been embroiled in controversy over grazing for three decades.

“There is no question that permittees and Forest Service personnel both contributed to this dispute,” says Colorado State University rangeland management professor emeritus Roy Roath, who has tried to help both sides develop sound grazing management strategies for more than 20 years.

Roath says that there are similarities between the Tongue District strife and other quarrels across the West between ranchers and the federal government.

“On the permittees side, there is a general dislike of government people, and it always seems like there is one agitator who makes things difficult for everyone,” he says. “On the other side, you can tell when a personnel change occurs in a U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management office because things either get better or get worse.”

Roath says that disagreements can typically be solved if people communicate and are willing to compromise, but that hasn’t happened on a regular basis on the Tongue District despite mediation.

In the past, he says, “It was like both sides were tone deaf. They stand in a room and talk, but no one truly listens. But you can overcome that by deciding where the problems lie and working toward a solution. That allows you to focus on the biology of range management versus politics and agitators.”

Who’s at fault?

Of the 13 Tongue District grazing permittees that Western Farmer-Stockman spoke with, about half blamed the entire controversy on the USFS while the other half admitted that both parties contributed equally (only four agreed to be quoted in the series).

Among those blaming both sides is Ranchester, Wyo., cattle producer Dana Kerns, who says that a few in-your-face permittees hurt the entire ranching community’s ability to effectively solve problems with USFS.

On the flip side, Kerns notes, some agency personnel haven’t been able to sit down and have a conversation without trying to put everything on the record, which hinders trust and that all-important sense of goodwill.

“Government gets very swallowed up in policies and protocol, and this doesn’t lend itself to good, open communication,” says Kerns, president of Guardians of the Range, a rancher advocacy group that addresses public lands grazing issues on behalf of many permittees in northern Wyoming.

The Guardians’ executive director, Kathleen Jachowski, adds that ranchers, agency personnel, mediators and others involved in disputes, including those over public lands grazing, need to make sure their boxes are filled with two critical sets of tools, and that they understand how to use each set.

“First, there is the skill to hear clearly what is being said as well as what is not being said,” Jachowski says. “Second, there is the skill that comes from having both professional maturity and courage to know how, when and where to say what needs to be said.”

Kerns says that great strides are being made on the Tongue District to improve rangeland conditions as well as communication and relations with the USFS. It’s his hope that USFS personnel can be a little more open-minded and that the last remaining permittees who are still on the fight can remove their gloves and come to the table in peace.

“I believe we all have an obligation to be professional in whatever we do, and when you become in-your-face, you are not professional, which hurts everyone,” Kerns says.

Creating the greatest good - >>>

~~~PAGE_BREAK_HERE~~~

Greatest good for the greatest number

Like her predecessor, Amy Ormseth knew exactly what she was facing when she took over the Tongue District ranger’s job exactly one year ago—a long history of contention between livestock permittees and the U.S. Forest Service over grazing.

Though antagonism still exists, she notes, positive steps continue to be made as many of the parties involved work toward cooperation and compromise.

“The truth is, I do believe that tension still exists,” says Ormseth, who leads one of three district ranger offices on north-central Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest.

Though all three districts, like many across the West, have had their fair share of disputes over grazing, battles on the Tongue have been particularly fierce, in part because of drastic cuts in stocking rates and seasons of use. These measures were necessary, according to USFS, to heal riparian areas and uplands that were damaged by decades of grazing mismanagement.

“Change is hard and uncomfortable for most,” Ormseth says. “It’s a hard thing to swallow knowing that we cannot go back to the ‘way things used to be.’”

She says that rangeland and riparian conditions continue to improve, and she gives credits to both the grazing permittees and USFS, among others.

“It has taken commitment, and, along the way, there were many disagreements and conflicting views,” Ormseth says. “But I do see a vast improvement in the ecosystem, which shows success toward keeping grazing as a forest use into the future.”

This has taken improved grazing management, which stems from very open, honest dialog, she notes.

“The important part of this dialog has been communication. We may not always agree, but that is to be expected as we all represent different missions—from the private party who is in the business of sustaining a ranching operation to the USFS mission of ‘caring for the land and serving people,’” Ormseth says.

“As you’ve captured in previous articles in this series, people involved in the changes over the last 30-plus years have all had varying experiences. But as hard of a road everyone has faced, I think we recognize that we are still in it together and have to work together to be successful.”

Ormseth says that one of her goals is to see the Tongue District lead an effort to eliminate the negative condonation that often comes with stories about public lands grazing and to eliminate the need to define the relationship between permittees and the government as a range war.

“I do not want this to be something that we go to war over,” she says. “USFS and grazing permittees both have the same goal of taking care of the resource that is on the mountain. We need to do that collaboratively and seek out new and different means of achieving that success to get to the goal together, not at war with each other.”

Ormseth emphasizes that both parties must recognize each other’s “truths, values and realities, and learn to adapt to reach success.”

Advice for permittees

What can ranchers across the West do to help preserve public lands grazing?

“Be flexible,” Ormseth urges. “We will not achieve success if either one of us remains in ‘our corner’ or ‘on one side’. Refusing to meet and discuss opportunities will not lead to success.”

Permittees, she says, can learn that agencies do want to work with them, contrary to popular belief. 

“We want to achieve successful management that is sustainable to the ecosystem and meets the needs of users. Achieving success is working beside you, not against you,” she says. “Come in with a can-do attitude, and be willing to negotiate and adjust to ever-changing conditions—from environmental conditions, including drought, to economic or political atmospheres.”

Ormseth also encourages permittees to work toward understanding and recognizing federal mandates and requirements that agencies like USFS and Bureau of Land Management are bound to work within. 

“Agencies are responsible to manage public lands according to laws, regulations and the desires and uses by all people. We are mandated to a multiple-use principle to allow for a variety of uses across the landscape.”

Ormseth adds: “There is no easy answer or simple formula to follow for success. Most often everyone involved has to make steps to give a little to achieve this success. Seek to understand where each party comes from.”

Advice for agencies

What can land-management agencies, including USFS, BLM and state land offices, learn from the Tongue District issue?

Ormseth responded: “Agencies can learn the same from Tongue Range District experiences similar to what I suggested for grazing permittees.  Remain open to discussion, and be as flexible as allowed with the laws and regulations. Don’t be afraid to try new methods, and always be willing to listen. Seek first to understand rather than be understood.”

Ormseth says that it’s also important for agency personnel to clearly articulate why difficult decisions need to be made.

“Clear decision processes eliminate the misconception that agencies want to remove certain uses from the landscape,” says Ormseth, who summarized her feelings by quoting Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of USFS who later served as Pennsylvania governor.

“Where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question shall always be answered from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.”

Compromise and communication - >>>

~~~PAGE_BREAK_HERE~~~

It takes compromise and good communication

The decades-old dispute between livestock permittees and the Tongue District of the Bighorn National Forest was costly in many ways, including the use of tax dollars to help bring the two parties together.

Wyoming’s three congressional delegates have been involved, including sending representatives to on-the-ground meetings.

Outside groups have also been called in to help, notably University of Wyoming Extension and Wyoming Department of Agriculture. Collectively, they have poured tens of thousands of dollars into mediation and rangeland monitoring.

But they hope their efforts were worth it and that many people can learn from this case.

“The emotions have been pretty high up there, and I realize that some people just don’t get along,” says former UW Extension rangeland specialist Rachel Mealor. “But it’s going to benefit everyone if you can have an open dialog, if you can collaborate and if you can monitor together.”

Adds retired UW Extension range specialist Mike Smith, who was involved with range monitoring on the district for more than 20 years: “It goes back to both sides having a willingness to work out difficulties without trying to start a fight.”

Rancher Dana Kerns says that permittees must remember that it’s a privilege—not a right—to hold a grazing permit, and because of that they must do their best to work well with the people holding the deck.

Kerns says he has never received a letter of non-compliance for not meeting grazing standards over consecutive years, but that USFS has raised isolated issues with his family about the conditions of their grazing allotments.

Instead of fighting the agency, he emphasizes that his family has taken necessary steps to correct problems.

“We’ll make adjustments with the time and timing of grazing the next year to ensure that standards are being met,” says Kerns, who notes that his family and hired hands move livestock seven days a week.

Working out differences

Lucy Pauley, mediation coordinator for the Wyoming Department of Agriculture, which has helped mediate a number of public lands grazing disputes in Wyoming, including the one on the Tongue District, says: “It takes compromise and good communication to solve differences. You usually see success when both sides can sit down at the table and talk about the problems.”

Larry Bentley of Thermopolis, Wyo., who has a ranching, range management and mediation background, was among the contractors hired by the Wyoming Department of Agriculture to assist with mediation and rangeland monitoring on the district.

After spending nearly an entire summer in the field, Bentley says he concurred with the USFS that many years of improper grazing management had hurt uplands and riparian areas, and that cuts in stocking rates and seasons-of-use were necessary to correct the problem.

“If that wouldn’t have been done, we couldn’t have defended the Tongue District’s grazing program in court. Some of the permittees didn’t like hearing that, but it’s what it is,” Bentley asserts.

Smith agrees, noting that “some of the permittees pretty consistently exceeded grazing standards; that this was their way of doing business.” And when the USFS started cracking down on them, he says, some permittees walked into the ring instead of peacefully sitting down at the table.

“There are better ways to go about things than fighting. Those who learn how to work with the agencies and do the right thing, even if they don’t always agree with USFS or BLM, will be the ones who are still running viable public lands ranching operations years from now,” Smith says. “These will be the people who are still in business and who are not always living on the edge.”

Trial progressing - >>>

~~~PAGE_BREAK_HERE~~~

Trespass trial set for April

At press time, the lawsuit against Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project was scheduled for trial in April in Wyoming’s ninth judicial district in Fremont County.

The suit was filed against WWP by 15 landowners in western Wyoming who claim the organization’s Wyoming/Utah/Colorado director, Jonathan Ratner, and others with the group trespassed onto their lands to collect water quality samples and range monitoring data on public lands.

WWP in past years has filed numerous lawsuits challenging what it terms “abusive grazing” on millions of acres of public lands across the West, including Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming.

WWP claims that the lawsuit filed by ranchers is in retaliation for exposing water quality conditions on public rangelands that violate federal law.

Landowners, however, contend that the group crossed their land without permission, showing a blatant disregard of private property rights.

The alleged actions by Ratner and WWP spurred the Wyoming State Legislature to pass a bill in 2015 that makes it a crime to unlawfully collect resource data from private lands unless permission is first secured from the landowner.

For more on the issue, see the June 2015 edition of Western Farmer-Stockman.

They Said It

“Today’s national policies dealing with the management of federal lands don’t put a real value on food and fiber. Instead, they put more emphasis on recreation and aesthetics. I don’t have a problem with that, but I do have a problem when I get penalized no matter how well I try to manage the resource. I’m frustrated, to say the least.”

Orrin Connell
Livestock grazing permittee
Big Horn, Wyo.

“The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act directs land-managing agencies to manage resources to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions to best meet the needs of the American people without impairment to the productivity of the land.  If livestock grazing is to remain a primary use of public lands, it must be done in a manner to provide for and enhance soil and water, wildlife, recreation and other uses.”

David Beard
Rangeland management specialist
Tongue District
Bighorn National Forest
Sheridan, Wyo.

“If you remove all of the massive subsidies that ranchers receive—including the ridiculously low fees that they pay to graze livestock on public lands—half the industry would be eliminated overnight. As it stands now, public lands livestock grazing is not a sustainable industry. It’s slowly collapsing under its own weight.”

Jonathan Ratner
Wyoming/Utah/Colorado director
Western Watersheds Project
Idaho-based environmental group