Editor’s note: This is the 12th story in a 13-part series exploring public lands grazing in the West.

When University of Wyoming Extension range specialist Rachel Mealor received a request for help from a northern Wyoming livestock permittee who had been in a running feud with the U.S. Forest Service over its grazing program, she agreed to become involved.

But Mealor says she made it very clear that UW Extension was not going to take sides or get embedded into the politics.

HEADING HOME: Members of the Dana Kerns family and others trail cattle off the Bighorn National Forest toward private ranch lands in north-central Wyoming.

“We wanted to hear from both sides, and then we wanted to help bring them together with things like communication and cooperative range monitoring,” Mealor says. “We wanted to offer some best management practices for range management that are based on science, which included some of our own personal work and observations. We wanted to help answer questions like: ‘Are we doing what we need to be doing to protect and improve the resources’?”

The rancher who called Mealor and others to come to his aid had been angry with the Tongue District of the Bighorn National Forest for more than three decades over issues such as rangeland monitoring and cuts in both livestock numbers and the amount of time his cattle could spend on the mountain.

In situations like this, Mealor encourages ranchers to set up their own monitoring plan and take detailed records and photos each year.

“Information is power,” she says. “There is some judgment when it comes to monitoring, but if you have proof that things are trending in the right direction, there is no argument.”

At the same time, she emphasizes, it’s best to put personal differences aside and try to work together, especially with things like cooperative range monitoring.

“Come up with an agreeable plan, identify key sites to monitor, set goals, and then work together to achieve those goals,” says Mealor, who has since taken a part-time job with UW Extension to spend more time with family.

Calling Congress

The same rancher who called Mealor also brought Wyoming’s Congressional delegates into the mix. They sent representatives to an on-the-ground meeting in 2013 between a few permittees and the USFS.

“Grazing on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands has been a key management tool for our ranching economy and needs to continue to help sustain our food economy and the health of our ranges,” says Joe Spiering, press secretary for U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., who comes from a ranching background.

At the same time, Spiering says, ranchers, USFS, BLM, and others must work together by having an open dialog and setting realistic management goals.

Clarke McClung, who retired as Tongue District ranger in late 2014, says it’s important for agency folks to understand all sides of an issue, but it’s equally important to not put off hard decisions, which helped lead to the decades-old dispute on the Tongue.

When asked if he had advice for permittees, McClung says that he encourages them to become actively involved in cooperative range monitoring with USFS, BLM, and other land management agencies.

Finally, McClung emphasizes, it would have been better if mediation would have started much earlier on the Tongue District.

“Yes, be involved early when things can still be mediated. Don’t wait till things are so emotional that discussions can’t happen,” he says. “Other stakeholders need to be involved early, too. Don’t come in at the 11th hour and throw a wrench into the works. Be a part of the solution.”

Facing contention? Try congeniality - >>>

~~~PAGE_BREAK_HERE~~~

When facing contention, try congeniality

When it comes to solving problems—whether an issue with a neighbor or a dispute with the federal government—the modus operandi can be one of contention or cooperation.

Across the West, both modes are being used by public lands ranchers at odds with the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, other federal and state agencies, and, at times, each other.

Ranchers, agency folks, mediators, representatives of Congressional delegates, and others interviewed by Western Farmer-Stockman agreed that cooperation is going to benefit ranchers much more than using the in-your-face contentious approach.

That has become very apparent on the Tongue District of the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming, says Mike Smith, a retired University of Wyoming Extension rangeland specialist who was involved with range monitoring and mediation on the district for many years.

“There are ranchers who continue to fight and who continue to spend their money on lawyers, and there are ranchers who choose to spend their time and money on cooperative monitoring and range management, being good stewards of the land, and trying to work well with others. It seems that those in the latter group are always the ones who come out winners,” Smith says.

Ranchester, Wyo., rancher Dana Kerns, whose family holds a permit to graze livestock on the Bighorn National Forest, says he tries hard to work with all parties involved—ranchers, government employees, politicians, Extension folks, and others.

“Blaming each other doesn’t help anyone. Likewise, good, open, honest communication is critical. If everyone can sit down and talk, a lot of problems can be averted. But if that doesn’t happen, suddenly there is a lack of trust on both sides,” he says.

Kerns is president of Guardians of the Range, a rancher advocacy organization that addresses public lands grazing issues on behalf of many permittees in northern Wyoming.

“Our group works extremely hard to keep lines of communication open. Our executive director meets with the Forest Service to try and find solutions to problems so things don’t become personal,” Kerns says.

Fighting city hall

Smith says that there are many lessons you can learn from the Tongue District dispute. “For one, it’s hard to fight city hall. You can keep on fighting, but the chances of winning are pretty slim. You can see this all across the West.”

Smith says that the Tongue District and Bighorn National Forest made mistakes along the way, especially before new managers came on board who seemed more willing to listen to the concerns of permittees and then work toward mutually agreeable solutions.

However, Smith says, “I can’t say the Forest Service was ever unreasonable, unlike a very small number of permittees. I’ve heard about some of the really heated moments—nearly to the point of fistfights—but fortunately that didn’t happen around me.”

Smith says that tensions are finally starting to ease on the district as the majority of ranchers are now trying to work well with the USFS, both in meetings and in the field.

“Most of the permittees are trying to meet standards every year. They aren’t always successful, but they are trying. And most of them are trying to be congenial,” Smith says. “I also believe the Forest Service is trying to do its best. The new managers had to remedy some old wounds, and they are trying to be as fair as they can about the whole situation.”

When the cows go home, things are looking better - >>>

~~~PAGE_BREAK_HERE~~~

When the cows go home, things are looking better

Ranchester, Wyo., rancher Dana Kerns agrees with the U.S. Forest Service that something had to be done to improve conditions of uplands and riparian areas on the Tongue District of the Bighorn National Forest.

“Would I agree that there has been some overgrazing in certain areas? Definitely,” says Kerns, who notes that some cuts in stocking rates and seasons-of-use were necessary to help safeguard grazing’s future on the forest.

But Kerns and other permittees say they are becoming more and more frustrated as standards and guidelines keep changing, as do rangeland monitoring techniques.

“Ranchers are masters of adaptive management, but it seems like every time we adjust and meet standards, the standards get changed,” he asserts.

One of the latest changes facing permittees was the switch to rangeland monitoring with a modified Robel pole and the mandated 5-band height. In a nutshell, this means that ranchers must leave enough standing herbage at the end of the grazing season to totally obscure the pole’s bottom 2 ½ inches. If they don’t, they’re out of compliance.

“I honestly can’t tell you if the Robel method is working, but if grass is important to you, you will find time to make sure your allotments are meeting standards,” Kerns says.

Another Tongue District permitteee, Big Horn, Wyo., rancher Orrin Connell, criticizes the Robel method for range monitoring—along with the updated standards and guidelines—even knowing his comments against USFS could come back with a bite.

“Are the standards meetable? If I said ‘no,’ wouldn’t I be cutting my own throat?” Connell asks. “I can say this: the way the standards are applied, they are very difficult to meet.”

Colorado State University rangeland management professor emeritus Roy Roath says the Robel pole can be an effective grazing management tool, but not used by itself.

“Plant response is a function of three things: frequency of use, intensity of use, and the opportunity for plants to grow and regrow,” says Roath, who has led grazing workshops on the Tongue District for many years. “The latter function is more important than the first two, but the Robel pole only looks at intensity of use. It doesn’t tell you what happens before and after you take that single measurement.”

Roath emphasizes that Robel pole monitoring on the Tongue District only determines stubble height and density, which is not the driving relationship in terms of plant response.

“I don’t have a problem with looking at residual matter left behind after grazing, which the Robel pole does, but I do have a problem when you’re not looking at the other two indicators, and I’ve clearly made my feelings known to the Forest Service,” Roath says.

Former Tongue District Ranger Clarke McClung believes that Robel pole monitoring is working well because forage is measured at the end of the grazing season in nearly 100 key areas on the 350,000-acre district.

“It was a hard jump to make, but no matter how much forage production there is in a given year, we still needed to be leaving some residue on the ground to get things moving in the right direction,” he emphasizes.

If riparian and upland conditions hadn’t started improving, McClung adds, even more cuts in stocking rates and seasons-of-use would have been necessary, which would have had tremendous long-term impacts on permittees.

And since degraded areas are now headed in a positive direction, he stresses, permittees and USFS are in a much better position to defend themselves against lawsuits over grazing, like it has already done. (In 2009, a federal judge ruled against the Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project, which filed suit over the Bighorn National Forest grazing plan, claiming it didn’t do enough to protect the environment.)

In a 2014 letter to permittees, McClung stated: “Since we are headed in the right direction, I can now look the public in the eye and support grazing of our national forest. If I look back at photos from the 1990s, things did not look so good when the cows went home.”

Voluntary range monitoring leads to cooperation - >>>

~~~PAGE_BREAK_HERE~~~

Voluntary range monitoring leads to cooperation

In western Wyoming, long-term friction between livestock permittees belonging to the Silver Creek Grazing Association and personnel with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management finally subsided when everyone came to the table and agreed on voluntary range monitoring.

Because of that, the situation quickly went from contentious to cooperative, according to those involved.

“It’s critical that the entire process be done jointly and voluntarily. That way, everyone is on the same page and they are all seeing the same thing at the same time,” Boulder, Wyo., rancher Joel Bousman says. “This builds trust, and trust goes a long way toward having a good, working relationship between federal agencies and stakeholders of the land.”

A University of Wyoming Extension story about the program is at www.uwyo.edu/uwe/pubs/connect/06_fall.pdf

UW Extension also published a bulletin that details the program. Implementing a Cooperative Permittee Monitoring Program can be found at http://www.wyoextension.org/agpubs/pubs/B1169.pdf

They Said It

“A small number of forest managers who left the district years ago wanted to see things done right, but weren’t willing to take uncomfortable yet necessary actions. They compounded the problem by letting those permittees who yelled loudest continue to yell instead of making timely, fair decisions. And the permittees who have continued to yell loud have taken away from developing a first class communication framework and finding solutions to problems.”

Kathleen Jachowski
Executive director
Guardians of the Range
Cody, Wyo.

“Farm Bureau supports multiple-use of public lands, in part, to strengthen local economies. The timber industry has taken a tremendous hit in Wyoming and across the West, and it’s our belief that livestock grazing is now the focus. The agencies are making it harder and harder to meet standards, and stocking rates continue to be cut back. That is making it tougher and tougher for ranchers to maintain viable operations and produce food for our country.”

Brett Moline
Public and governmental affairs director
Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation
Laramie, Wyo.