November 1999Vol 3., No. 1

(con’t on page 19)

Melding Rangeland Ecology andLivestock Grazing Managementby Kris Havstad, Supervisory Scientist, USDA, Agricultural Research Service,Arid Rangeland Research Unit at the Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, New Mexico

their ability to produce, capture andstore nutrients and to conserve soilresources, can be maintained.

The purpose of this essay is tooutline a scientific perspective thatlinks rangeland ecology with manage-ment of rangeland grazing by live-

stock. We know that well-managedgrazing on appropriate sites is charac-terized by managerial control over theintensity, timing, and frequency oflivestock grazing. We also know thatsome sites (such as riparian areas asdescribed by A.J. Belsky, A Matzkeand S. Uselman in a 1999 article inthe first quarter issue of the Journalof Soil and Water Conservation,pp. 419-431) may require periods ofrest and/or very controlled grazingmanagement practices. Irrespective,the livestock management principlesunderlying these practices have beenwell described and don’t need elabo-ration in this essay. What needs elabo-ration are the ecological intricacies ofthese rangelands, and the ecologicalprocesses that should be the basis fortheir management.

Understanding and ModificationDuring the 20th century

IntroductionSixty-one years ago, F. E.

Mollin wrote an article entitled Ifand when it rains: the stockman’s viewof the range question published by theAmerican National Live Stock As-sociation (1938). That article con-veyed the idea that our western range-lands were in good shape and anydeteriorated lands would be restoredwith adequate rain. We’ve come along way from the extremism of that1930s dust bowl perspective. Wenow know that many of our westernrangelands have been overgrazed, thatsome areas remain in degraded statesdespite adequate rainfall, and thatsome rangelands shouldn’t be grazedby livestock. Yet, we also know fairlyclearly that livestock grazing of range-lands can be a sustainable practice formany sites, for many seasons, and formany years. Extensive experimenta-tion has illustrated that grazing canbe managed and the integrity ofrangeland ecosystems, in terms of

Editor’s Note This is the first of four news-letters on issues surrounding theNew Ranch. This edition dis-cusses the Ecology of the NewRanch. Future newsletters willaddress the Economics of theNew Ranch, the Market andthe New Ranch, and the Com-munity and the New Ranch.

November 1999

2

The Quivira CoalitionNewsletter is published by TheQuivira Coalition 4 times a year.

The opinions expressedin signed articles are the opinionsof the writers and not necessarilythose of the Coalition. Articlesmay be freely reprinted for non-profit purposes, provided thatcredit is given to the author andThe Quivira Coalition.

Subscriptions are avail-able for $15 a year. Please send acheck or money order to TheQuivira Coalition, 551 CordovaRoad, #423, Santa Fe, NM 87501.Send address changes to the sameaddress. Please allow 4-6 weeksfor processing.

Founders:Jim Winder(505) 267-4227jrwinder@aol.comCourtney White(505) 982-5502wldwst@rt66.comBarbara Johnson(505) 466-4935lunah3@aol.com

Editor:Barbara Johnson(505) 466-4935lunah3@aol.com

The QuiviraCoaliTion

551 Cordova Road, #423Santa Fe, NM 87501

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

www.quiviracoalition.org

Printed on RecycledElectrons Worldwide

From theFounders

Jim WinderCourtney WhiteBarbara Johnson

There are many barom-eters to measure our success. Westarted with less than 100 nameson our mailing list; now we have1200. We began with only threemembers—us; now we have al-most 500.

New grass is growing alongMacho Creek, on a mine site nearCuba, among the rolling hills southof Quemado, and in the moun-tains above Peñasco.

We have been profiled innewspaper stories from Demingto Taos; in Range magazine andAmerican Cowboy (upcoming);our op-eds have been published indaily papers in Tucson, Omaha,and Los Angeles.

The most important ba-rometer, however, is our volun-teers. Without the help of so manytalented and dedicated folks, theprogress of the Quivira Coalitionwould have been negligible.

Thus, at the conclusion ofour second full season of work, wewant to thank our volunteers pub-licly. We sincerely hope they willcontinue to work with us in thefuture.

Many thanks to:Steve Allen, Crawford, COCraig Allen, Los AlamosDean Anderson, Las CrucesLeonard Atencio, Santa FeCarlota Baca, Santa FeKim Barmann, SpringerRichard Becker, AlbuquerqueGilbert Borrego, Santa FeDave Bradford, Paonia, COBen Brown, AnimasAbel Camerena, Silver CityMichael Coleman, AlbuquerqueJeff & Camille Cornell,

It is hard to believe that ithas been a little over two yearssince we founded the Quivira Coa-lition. It seems like only yester-day—and a million years ago.

We set forth on our jour-ney wondering if anyone wouldpay attention to our message ofcooperation and collaboration, es-pecially the media. The NewRanch, we thought, lacked therhetorical extremism that seemedto be a prerequisite to getting no-ticed in a very noisy world.

Fortunately, we werewrong.

(con’t on page 3)

November 1999

3

Wagon MoundDan Crittenden, PecosDan Dagget, Flagstaff, AZJulia Davis-Stafford, RatonMelanie Deason, Santa FeBill deBuys, Santa FeMac Donaldson, Sonoita, AZCrockett Dumas, Ferron, UTDick Edwards, RuidosoWayne Elmore, Prineville, ORDoug Fraser, Santa FeEd Fredrickson, Las CrucesKirk Gadzia, BernalliloGail Garber, AlbuquerqueSteve Goddard, Sasabe, AZDon & Lorraine Goldman, Santa FeSid Goodloe, CapitanSterling Grogan, AlbuquerqueAparcio Gurule, CubaKirt Espenson, CoronaC.J. Hadley, Carson City, NVKris Havstad, Las CrucesFrank Hays, Clifton, AZGen Head, Santa FeMonika Helbing, Pie TownDavid Henkel, Santa FeTim Herfel, Dallas, TXJeff Herrick, Las CrucesJerry Hibbetts, QuemadoSusan Holtzman, Portland, ORMark Hostetler, Phoenix, AZJames Hopkins, Twentynine Palms, CAMark & Denny Hubbell, QuemadoLinn Kennedy, DatilGary King, Santa FePhil Knight, Wickenburg, AZRichard & Heather Knight, Fort Collins, COBen Kuykendall, TaosPat Laney, HillsboroBob Langsenkamp, Santa FeMerle Lefkoff, La CienegaSteve Leonard, Prineville, ORSteve Libby, Silver City

George Maestas, PeñascoPalemon Martinez, ValdezMark McCollom, Fort SumnerBill McDonald, Douglas, AZMaryAnn McGraw, PlacitasCraig Miller, Tucson, AZMcKinley-Ben Miller, AlbuquerqueScott Miller, Alamosa, COSteve Miranda, PeñascoBob Moore, GlenwoodDennis Moroney, Prescott, AZPat Morrison, LunaDavid Ogilvie, Silver CityJohn Pierson, QuemadoCarol Pittman, DatilRay Powell, Jr., Santa FeMary Burton Risely, GilaSherry Robinson, AlbuquerqueNatalie Runyan, Santa FeDutch Salmon, Silver CityAndie Sanchez, PenascoNathan Sayre, Tucson, AZMark Schiller & Kay Matthews, El ValleTamara Sherburn, AlbuquerqueSherry Thompson, Santa FeJoe Torres, Angel FireEllie Trotter, TijerasVirgil Trujillo, AbiquiuDavid Vackar, RatonRio de la Vista, Pagosa Springs, COAnne Watkins, AlbuquerqueTerry & Diana Wheeler, Globe, AZJim & Joy Williams, Quemado(and all the others we forgot!)

We are looking forward toanother exciting year. We hopeyou are too!

From the Founders(con’t)

In order to complywith postal regula-tions, please note thatthis is our correctaddress:

The Quivira Coalition551 Cordova Rd., #423Santa Fe, NM 87501

November 1999

4

(con’t on page 5)

A friend of mine whoteaches ecosystem studies at North-ern Arizona University regularlytakes his students out onto nearbyrangelands for field trips. Whenhe does, he usually asks themwhether the lands they’re visitingare healthy or not. Often, he says,the students have trouble answer-ing. They fidget and get nervousand eventaully ask him a question:“Is this land grazed or not?”

Many of us would experi-ence the same unease if we wereput in the middle of black grammagrass, rabbitbrush, and juniper inwhich we couldn’t see any obviousclues as to how it was being man-aged. And so we would likely askthe same question my friend’s stu-dents ask: “Is this land grazed ornot?”

And if the answer we get is“Yes,” most likely we would re-spond as those students do. Wewould say the land was unhealthy.If, on the other hand, we weretold, “No, this land isn’t beinggrazed,” most of us would say theland was healthy no matter what itlooked like.

We would answer in thatway because most of us assumethat if land is being left alone it ishealthy. In fact, that’s what mostof us mean by healthy when itcomes to the land—that it is beingleft alone. We’re like an environ-mentalist I know who was talkingto a rancher one day when therancher offered: “Tell me whatyou want this land to be, and I’llmake that my goal and managetoward it, and then we can be alliesinstead of adversaries.”

The environmentalistthought a while and then answered,

“There’s only one thing you cando to make this place better. . .youcan leave. Because if you leave,whatever happens will be naturaland, therefore, good, and if youstay, whatever happens will be ar-tificial and, therefore, bad.”

There’s a problem with thisapproach to judging the health ofrangeland ecosystems. For onething, using this technique, we canjudge whether a piece of land ishealthy or not without even seeingit.

If you don’t think this sortof judging can get you into trouble,I’ve got some examples that mightchange your mind. Some of themyou’ve already read about in ear-lier issues of this newsletter. Someof them you haven’t.

U Bar RanchFirst, consider David

Ogilvie’s U Bar Ranch along theGila River in southwestern NewMexico. This ranch, at present,serves as the home to more endan-gered Southwestern Willow Fly-catchers than any other place inthe world. The reason those birdsare there, scientists tell us, is be-cause of the way David manageshis ranch. Specifically, because hehas returned water flow to a seriesof dirt irrigation ditches whosenatural leakage nurtures a riparianforest of cottonwoods and box el-ders that serves as habitat for theflycatchers. David’s managementincludes grazing cattle in some ar-eas where the flycatchers are nest-ing and feeding. If you would saythe land is unhealthy because cattlegraze there, you may want to clear

What AboutNature?

Or WhatDoes

NatureHave to Say

AboutGrazing?

by Dan Dagget

November 1999

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. Forest

Service District Ranger,Clifton, Arizona *

Mark McCollum, RancherVirgil Trujillo, Manager,

Ghost Ranch ** For informational purposes only

The Quivira CoalitionCourtney White,

Executive Director

The Board of Directors

(con’t on page 16)

What About Nature?(con’t from page 4)

that with the flycatchers. They,obviously, have endorsed DavidOgilvie’s management with theirpresence, with their nests, and withthe highest rate of breeding suc-cess of any known population.Southwestern Willow Flycatchers,in other words, would say that, asfar as they’re concerned, this issome of the healthiest land on theplanet.

Cyprus Miami Copper MineNext, consider an area

where Terry Wheeler, a rancherand ecologist from Globe, Ari-zona, has used cattle to initiatenatural healing processes to trans-form an ecological disaster into agreen and growing grassland.

The restoration site is lo-cated on a pile of copper minetailings roughly 1,100 acres in areaand up to 300 feet thick at theCyprus Miami Copper Mine inMiami, Arizona, southeast of Phoe-nix. These tailing are what’s left ofcopper-bearing rock that has beendug up, crushed to the consistencyof talcum powder, and then treatedwith a combination of chemicalagents which includes, amongother things, cyanide. After thechemicals have been used to leachthe copper and other marketableminerals from the ore, the leftoverslurry is drained and piped ontothe huge intentional spill I havejust described. There the tailingssit in suspended animation, a di-lemma Nature has been unable tosolve, incorporate, or reclaim formore than half a century.

Terry, who grew up inGlobe, looked at that pile of minetailings for most of his life and sawnothing but sterile rock dust and

the problems it caused. After tak-ing a course in Holistic Manage-ment, however, he saw the samearea as an opportunity and a chal-lenge. “That course got me tothinking,” Wheeler declared.“Soil’s a living thing. It’s made upof rock dust and micro-organisms.We’ve got plenty of rock dust. Allwe need is to add the micro-organ-isms.”

Wheeler surmised that, byenriching the tailings with organicmaterial in the form of hay and byhaving cattle trample that hay intothe tailings and add the microbesfrom their gut to jumpstart theprocess of decay, which is the es-sence of a living soil, he could turnthat sterile pile of mine tailingsinto a living ecosystem.

And so he did. After a lotof hard work and sweat and won-dering whether this method wasgoing to work or not, TerryWheeler and the cows he call Four-Legged Organic Soil Builders (or“FLOSBees”) covered a consider-able chunk of that tailings pilewith green growing grass, and theywere making steady headway onthe rest.

So, here you are on a fieldtrip, like those students, gettingready to answer the question, Isthis land healthy or not? First, youwalk out onto the untreated tail-ings. As you do, you sink in almostto your shoe tops. When cattlestep onto this stuff, they sink insometimes to their chests. As youlook around, you notice that theonly things growing here are a fewsmall, spindly weeds, and they’recrusted with tailings. A puff of

November 1999

6

(con’t on page 7)

Few issues inflame the pas-sions in the grazing debate more thanthe question of rest.

For many environmentalists,“Rest the West!” is the only accept-able resolution to the problem of per-sistent overgrazing by livestock; tomany ranchers, rest is an unaccept-able economic hardship; to publicland managers, rest is often a conve-nient “out” for resolving contentiousproblems on the range (often unsatis-factorily); for holistic educators, restis just one tool that can be used toeffectively manage land; to scientists,rest is a complex puzzle; and to the

public at large, rest is often a simplis-tic solution.

But what, exactly, is “rest?”In early September, I drove

to Chaco Culture National Histori-cal Park to take a peek at a famousfence line contrast, and maybe learn afew things about the complexities ofthis issue. I invited Kirk Gadzia, arange expert and co-author of the

National Academy of Sciences bookRangeland Health (1994), along tohelp me understand what I was see-ing.

Fence Line ContrastWe stopped at the park’s East

Boundary fence, where it meets thepavement. On the western side of thefence was the National Park Service,which had excluded livestock fromgrazing on its land for over 50 years.On the eastern side was the NavajoNation, whose cattle could be seenloafing nearby.

The contrast between the twosides was as dramatic in Sep-tember as it had been adozen years ago when AllanSavory declared the condi-tions on the Chaco side tobe an archetypal exampleof the dangers of overrest.Savory even took classes toChaco to see for themselves.

My goal this day wasnot to declare anything. Iwasn’t looking for a silverbullet of any sort, yea ornay. I simply wanted tolearn a few facts; and withKirk’s guidance, what wesaw is summarized in thebox on page 7.

We agreed that bothsides of the fence lookedunhealthy, from a water-shed perspective. The im-pact of livestock grazing onthe Navajo side was heavy,and apparent. Plants were

not being given enough time to re-cover before being bitten again. As aresult, despite the recent rains, theplants on the Navajo side lacked thevigor they would have exhibited inthe presence of well-managed graz-ing.

According to Kirk, however,

To Rest, OrNot To Rest:

Lessons from aChaco Fence

by Courtney White

(with Kirk Gadzia)

East Boundary of Chaco Culture National Historical Park. Chaco is on the left.

November 1999

7

the Chaco side exhibited increasedsigns of instability (i.e., more un-healthy). “The major contributingfactor to this condition is the lack oftightly spaced perennial plants,” hesaid “which exposes the soil to theerosive effects of wind and rain. Whensoil loss is increased, options for thefuture are reduced.”

He immediately put somecaveats in place: it was impossible tosay how much of what we saw was sitespecific. “The fence location itself maybe a factor since it is located near thehead of the watershed,” henoted, “although thedowncutting of the arroyobegins immediately on theChaco side of the fence.”

Other site-specificfactors include how soil typemight be affecting the plantcommunity, how the cattlewere managed, and what rolethe recent heavy rains mighthave played.

Effects of RestNevertheless, Kirk

made one generalization:based on his experience inarid environments aroundthe world, total rest fromgrazing has predictable re-sults. In the first few years,there is an intense responsein the system as the pressureof overgrazing is lifted. Plantvigor, diversity, and abun-dance often return at once and allappears to functioning normally.

Over the years, however, ifthe system does not receive periodicdisturbance (i.e., fire or grazing byungulates), then the symptoms listedin the box often materialize. “The netresult,” says Kirk, “may not be whatmanagers have in mind as their goalfor the health of the land.”

All of which was plainly inevidence on the Chaco side of the

fence (we visited the South Boundaryfence too, and found similar condi-tions, though on a much less dramaticscale).

“Does this mean Chaco isunhealthy?” I asked Kirk.

“From a watershed perspec-tive, from what I’ve seen, I have to sayyes,” he replied.

“But there’s a bigger ques-tion here,” he continued. “Is rest pro-ducing what the park wants? Ecologi-cally, the answer is probably ‘no.’ Butfrom a cultural resource perspective,

On The Chaco Side On The Navajo Nation Side

Lots of bare ground Lots of plant cover and litterLots of annuals and shrubs Lots of perennial grassesWide spaces between plants Tight spaces between plantsLots of woody material, some of it dead Few woody plantsFew juvenile plants Wide age-class distributionLots of oxidized, gray plant material Very little oxidizationFew bunch grasses Lots of bunch grassesGreater diversity of plant species Less diversity of plant speciesPoor plant vigor Poor plant vigorUndisturbed, capped soil Lots of trampled soilEvidence of soil movement Little evidence of soil movementPuffy soil Tighter, compacted soilGullies and other signs of erosion No gullies, less signs of ero-sionNo manure Lots of manureMore birds Fewer birdsMore seed production Less seed productionNo sign of overgrazing Lots of overgrazed plants

the answer might be ‘yes.’ From thepublic perspective, too. People maynot want to see fire or grazing in theirpark.”

I thought about this all theway home. From the environmentalperspective, prolonged rest in aridenvironments clearly can result in eco-logical harm. On the other hand, not

To Rest, orNot to Rest(con’t from page 6)

(con’t on page 18)

November 1999

8

TheSeñorito

CreekProject

Terry Wheeler, project director.

Holistic “reclaimers” atwork on mine slope.

This project began in July 1999 with the construction of initialtraining and holding paddocks and electric fencing.

On August 3, 31 cattle arrived on site and were kept for 3 days inthe training pen. On August 18, 1999, 49 additional cattle arrived on site(for a total of 80) and were kept for 2 days in the training pen.

Nine flat paddocks have been constructed, averaging .21 acreseach, for a total of 1.93 acres. Five slope paddocks have been constructed,averaging .24 acres each, for a total of 1.19 acres. A total of 3.125 acres havethus far been treated.

The average animal days per paddock have been 154 for the flatareas and 240 on the slopes. We have used 43 lbs of hay per head per dayon the flat areas, and 62 lbs of hay per head per day on the slopes.

We are feeding the cattle on (about 20 lbs per acre) a seed mix of:Western Wheatgrass; Sideoats Grass; Mountain Muhly; June Grass; South-ern Brome Grass; Orchard Grass; and Yellowblossom Sweet Clover. We areoverseeding with whole oats.

Five permanent quantitative monitoring points were established inAugust using the Jornada Monitoring Protocol described on page 15: 3 onslopes and 2 on benches. The following baseline measurements were made:Plant community cover and composition (canopy and basal) were recorded using a line point intercept method.Additionally, canopy gaps were measured using a continuous line intercept in order to quantify the area which ispotentially exposed to wind erosion and to characterize the site with respect to runoff. Soil samples were collected and

tested in the field for stability in water. This test is also an indicator of the levelof soil biotic activity as most of the bonds which maintain aggregates largerthan 1.5mm (the screen size) are organic. Photos have also been taken.

We held an Open House at the site on September 17 for permittees,members of the public, members of the Rio Puerco Management Committee,and the media. We have contacted the area BLM permittees, and some of theForest Service permittees. We have also contacted many members of the Cubacommunity, and we have found consistent support for our efforts. We willsoon schedule a meeting with permittees and other interested ranchers tobegin work on a draft management plan for the Señorito Creek watershed.

November 1999

9

Señorito Creek(con’t)

Top: Contrast between re-claimed and unreclaimed land.

Middle: Project site.

Bottom: Open House at theoverburden pile from theNacimiento Mine, which islocated on private land ownedby Aparcio Gurule. This projectcould not have been under-taken without Mr. Gurule’s helpand cooperation and withoutfunding from the EPA andconsistent support from theNew Mexico EnvironmentDepartment.

November 1999

10

Profile of Good

Stewardship:

The DavisFamily and

the CSRanch

(con’t on page 11)

Curiosity can be a produc-tive tool, especially if placed in thehands of caring people.

It certainly seems to haveworked to the benefit of the Davisfamily and the CS Ranch. In littleover a dozen years, the 100,000 acreCS has transformed itself from atraditional cattle operation to oneguided by the principles of holisticmanagement.

The ranch’s 3,000 head ofcattle, which can graze on threeseparate parcels of private land nearSpringer, in northeastern New

Mexico, are managed ef-fectively as one herd. Thisallows the Davis familyflexibility to control theimpact of the herd on theland.

The family hasn’tstopped there, however.Over the years they havefine tuned their manage-ment; expanded a profit-able hunting and guid-ing service; investigatedthe benefits of conserva-tion easements; and evenco-hosted a workshop onrangeland health with theQuivira Coalition. Re-

cently, the family has turned itsattention to long-term monitoringof their land.

Curiosity, in the case of theDavis family, has expanded numer-ous horizons.

Family AffairThe CS is co-managed by

all six children of Les and LindaDavis. Les’ grandparents emigratedto northeastern New Mexico fromIowa in 1873. Perhaps followingthis ancestral spirit, the four broth-ers and two sisters migrated awayfrom the ranch as young adults,

pursuing careers as different as pilotand public defender.

Eventually all six siblingsreturned to the CS. Although theirmotivations for coming home weredifferent, they were united by anabiding love of the ranch and a deepfamily bond. “We were very tight asa family growing up,” says JuliaDavis-Stafford, “and we remain bestfriends today.”

Things had changed,though, during their time away fromhome. The business of ranching, forexample, had changed dramatically.The globalization of the economy,the centralization of the beef indus-try, advances in animal genetics,new technology, subdivision devel-opment pressure, and other “realworld” factors confronted the wholeDavis family.

Sitting still was not an op-tion.

Fortunately, change hadbrought along new ideas too— ideasthat the Davis family was willing totry. In the mid-1980s they enrolledin classes offered by Allan Savory’sCenter for Holistic Resource Man-agement in Albuquerque. They likedwhat they heard and put this newthinking to work on the ranch.

And they never looked back.As a private-lands ranch, the

CS is shielded from most of thelawsuits, shouting matches, and fin-ger-pointing that has engulfed graz-ing on public lands. A great deal ofthe shouting involves monitoringor the lack of it, and the ability ofland managers to accurately deter-mine the condition of the land andpredict trends.

It is to the credit of theDavis family that they are willing tomake such a determination anyway.

Julia Davis-Stafford on the radio.

November 1999

11

Good Stewardship:

CS Ranch(con’t from page 10)

(con’t on page 23)

Land EKGOne method they are try-

ing is called “Land EKG”—the copy-righted name of a monitoring pro-tocol developed by Charlie Orchardof Bozeman, Montana. Charlie is afourth generation rancher who be-came frustrated one summer withthe conflicting and time-consum-ing methods of monitoring he wasrequired to use by various agencies.Worse, he wasn’t getting a sense forthe “big picture” of range health.He decided there had to be a betterway.

According to Charlie, LandEKG “visually depicts the relativehealth of the soil system and plant

community, incorporating the fourbasic ecosystem processes: watercycle, nutrient cycle, energy flow,and plant succession.” Charlie stud-ies 20 soil and vegetation indicatorsalong permanent transects. The re-sult is an “ecograph” that describeshow well the site is functioning and

pinpoints problems.Indicators include the pres-

ence of living organisms, litter accu-mulation, gullies, pedestaling, thepercentage of bare soil, the numberof germination sites, species diver-sity, plant vigor, plant recruitmentand distribution.

Questions that Land EKGasks include: Is litter cover adequateand cycling quickly back into thesoil? Is top soil staying on site? Ismoisture absorbed where it contactssoil? Is the plant community di-verse? Does it express a healthy agestructure? Is the capture of sunlightbeing optimized and effectivelytransferred to other life forms?

The answers to these ques-tions are not idle curiosity—theycould make or break a ranch finan-cially. “Ranchers should monitor,”says Charlie, “to verify what we’redoing right, and change things if

Land EKG courtesy of CharlieOrchard.

November 1999

12

The FarHorizon

by Courtney White

(con’t on page 13)

I really hate bumper-sticker environmentalism.

On October 4th, whiletraveling to speak at a conferencehonoring the legacy of AldoLeopold, I innocently bought acopy of the New York Times. Iopened it only to be confronted bya full-page advertisement entitled“End Welfare Ranching.”

The ad was the fourth in aseries on the “Extinction Crisis,”paid for by an organization calledthe Turning Point Project. It con-tained the customary shock rheto-ric about beer and oil barons feed-ing at the federal trough whiletheir cattle denuded the land. Thestandard catalogue of ills associ-ated with overgrazing were reiter-ated, along with the requisite “be-fore” and “after” photos of a healthystream vs. one nuked by cattle.

The ad’s authors even hadthe audacity to cite an article inBioscience in support of their po-sition—without stating one of thearticle’s conclusions, that recre-ation posed a greater threat to en-dangered species than grazing. Iwondered if the next ad in theseries would be “End Welfare Rec-reation.” I bet it won’t.

In addition to the usualsuspects, the list of sponsors forthe ad included, to my surprise,Earth Island Institute, Friends ofthe Earth, U.S. Public Interest Re-search Group, Wild Earth, andDefenders of Wildlife (a co-spon-sor of the Leopold conference!).

I was appalled, to be frank.We all understand that overgraz-ing is a huge problem that needsimmediate attention. Livestockgrazing in the American West,however, incorporates a complex

web of ecological, cultural, his-torical, political, and commercialconcerns; to wave the “magicwand” of abolition over the prob-lem is not a viable solution.

In fact, of all the issues onthe “To Do” list of environmentalactivists, grazing reform should beone of the most resistant tobumper-sticker sloganeering. Sowhy is this train gathering speed?

Why Now?Lately I have wondered

aloud to friends and neighbors whyso much momentum is buildingto extinguish public lands ranch-ing. Why now, when so muchscientific evidence points at de-cades-old overgrazing as the pri-mary culprit in the poor conditionof some rangeland? Why now,when the numbers of livestock onpublic lands are at historic lows(and going down)?

Why now, when the eco-nomics of the cattle business al-ready have ranchers on the ropes;when the status quo, traditionalranching paradigm is crumblingbefore our eyes; and when a pro-gressive ranching movement isbeginning to make a difference?

Why now, when publicland management agencies are giv-ing greater weight than ever toecological values as part of their“multiple use” mandate; when newideas in land stewardship, particu-larly livestock and wildlife man-agement, are beginning to takeroot among agency decision-mak-ers; and when scientists are step-ping up to the plate in increasingnumbers to help solve environ-mental conflicts?

“Off with their heads!” —The Red Queen,

Alice in Wonderland

November 1999

13

The Far Horizon(con’t from page 12)

(con’t on page 14)

Why now, when urbansprawl, often implemented at theexpense of private farm and ranchland, has become a major concernof environmental organizations(fighting sprawl is one of four long-term national campaigns beingconducted by the Sierra Club);when industrial-strength factoryfarms threaten our land and water;and when wildlife habitat is beingfragmented by subdivisions acrossthe West, sometimes at the rate ofan acre an hour?

Why now, when our foodsupply is increasingly centralizedin the hands of a very few corpo-rate conglomerations; when thedemand for organic food is on therise; and when biochemical com-panies and feedlot operators insiston injecting meat with a wideningarray of genetically altered, tech-nology inspired supplements?

Why now, when the cor-porate globalization of oureconomy threatens to wipe out thelast vestige of our family-scale ag-ricultural heritage; when indig-enous peoples around the worldare fighting to maintain their in-tegrity and identity; and when col-laborative efforts between rural andurban activists (who often sharesimilar goals) are beginning to blos-som?

Why now call for the endof public lands ranching? Whynow, when solutions to problemsso plainly exist? Why?

Trouble With PrioritiesMuch like the grazing de-

bate itself, there is no simple an-swer to this question.

Mounting frustration byenvironmental activists at a con-

spicuous lack of progress on keyissues, such as wilderness designa-tion, is one partial answer. An em-bedded, and souring, “us vs. them”paradigm is another, especiallysince so much of the debate overthe environment has shifted intothe political arena. Ignorance, I’msorry to say, is another explana-tion, as is anger.

A current event illuminatesmy concern. This summer, Secre-tary of the Interior Bruce Babbittproposed the creation of a 450,000-acre National Monument in the“Arizona Strip” country, north ofthe Grand Canyon. He called theland one of Arizona’s “last bestplaces” and urged that it be pre-served by an act of Congress. Con-servation organizations immedi-ately demanded that the ante beupped to one million acres.

A few years ago, I wouldhave energetically applauded bothproposals. Today, however, I havedecidedly mixed feelings.

Babbitt made his proposalin order to “protect” the land. Butprotect it from what? Not fromlivestock grazing, since that usewill be grandfathered into the leg-islation. Not from residential sub-divisions, since most of the land ispublic, and very remote. Not fromthe destructive attention of a for-eign-owned mining company,since the area is not minerally at-tractive (the threat of a coal minewas the catalyst for the creation ofthe Grand Staircase-Escalante Na-tional Monument across the bor-der in Utah).

The Secretary cited con-cerns about potential oil-and-gasdevelopment and off-road vehicle

Ball CapsAvailable!

Support the message of theQuivira Coalition by wearingone of our attractive ball caps.They are beige with a greenbrim and embroidery have

this logo on them:

They are $12 plus $3 postageand handling. Send a checkto 551 Cordova Rd., #423,

Santa Fe, NM 87501to order.

November 1999

14

use. Doubtless these are legitimatethreats to the area’s integrity, but Iwonder if the benefits of their ex-clusion will be offset by the rise intourism and other recreationalpressures that will inevitably fol-low in the wake of the Monument’sdesignation? I, for one, am tiredof seeing our “last best places”turned into playgrounds.

The point is this: our pri-orities are upside down. Damageis damage, no matter what, or who,causes it. We should work fromthe ground up. We should em-brace complexity, not fight it. Pres-ervation, as we have defined it fornearly a century, may not actuallypreserve much of anything any-more. Drawing a line around onemillion acres of land may no moreguarantee its “preservation” thankicking all the cows off public landwill guarantee long-term environ-mental rejuvenation.

As John Muir correctlyobserved, the universe is a com-plex system of interlocking parts,each one affecting the other. Topull on one is to pull on the whole;nothing can be, or should be, sepa-rated and isolated. Reductionismis as dangerous as absolutism.

Of course, John Muirnever saw a bumper sticker.

RestorationI believe the environment,

especially public land, is in direneed of restoration, not just pres-ervation.

I’m not a scientist, but itdoesn’t take a Ph.D. to know thatthings are seriously out of kilteracross the West. Overgrazing,overlogging, overmining,overrecreating, and many other

forms of overuse (as well as ne-glect) have imperiled many of ournatural systems. Throw globalwarming, the carbon dioxide build-up in our atmosphere, and popu-lation pressure into the pot, andyou have a recipe for a crisis.

The goal, it seems to me, isto solve these problems. The de-bate should move back to issuessurrounding the basics of environ-mental health—what some call“proper functioning condition.”Values, such as grazing, mining,recreation, and preservation,should be secondary to function.Get the system to working prop-erly first, then let’s have a debateabout which value we wish to seeoccur there.

This isn’t rocket science;we already know how to restoremany natural systems to function-ality, and how to do it in an eco-logically sensitive, self-sustainingmanner. What we lack is the will-ingness to pull the debate out ofthe political arena and back intoan environmental one.

This doesn’t mean turn-ing over the keys to scientists. Whatit means is an energetic debateabout environmental and eco-nomic health that engages the ex-pertise of all the players. It meanseducation, dialogue, cooperation,patience, respect, and trust—all ofwhich are sorely lacking in thecurrent debate over the future ofour public lands.

It means the creation ofmore organizations like the QuiviraCoalition. It means rolling up oursleeves, shaking hands, and get-ting to work on the real grassroots.

By that I mean the grassand the roots.

“Drawing a line aroundone million acres of landmay no more guarantee

its ‘preservation’ thankicking all the cows off

public land willguarantee long-term

environmentalrejuvenation.”

The Far Horizon(con’t from page 13)

November 1999

15

A committee organized bythe federal government recently de-fined rangeland health as “the de-gree to which the integrity of thesoil, vegetation, and air as well as theecological processes of the range-land ecosystem are balanced andmaintained.” Integrity was definedas “Maintenance of the functionalattributes characteristic of a locale,including normal variability.”

The challenge for rangelandmanagers is to translate these defini-tions into on-the-ground meaning.One way to do this is with a moni-toring program. The purpose of amonitoring program is to providerepeated and relevant interpretationsof rangeland health that can be re-lated to management impacts. Theseinterpretations can then provide abasis for evaluating and adjustingthose management actions.

Unfortunately, ecologicalprocesses are difficult to observe ormeasure. Monitoring methods usu-ally rely on indicators, defined ascomponents of a system whose char-acteristics are used as an index ofattributes that are too difficult tomeasure. For example, amount ofthe ground at the soil surface cov-ered by live plants (referred to asbasal cover) is used as an indicator ofvegetation health. Indicators have along history of use in rangelandmonitoring, and have usually beenrelated to vegetation attributes. To-day, our interests are in a broaderevaluation of rangeland ecosystems,and we strive to monitor not onlyfor biotic integrity, but also for soilstability and hydrologic function.

In 1994 the National Acad-emy Press of Washington D.C. pub-lished a booklet entitled: Range-land Health: New Methods to Clas-sify, Inventory, and Monitor Range-lands. This booklet called for the

collection of consistent sets of dataon a small, selected set of indicatorsas part of all current and ongoingrangeland management and assess-ment activities.

There are many systemsavailable for monitoring rangelands.A difficulty is in identifying moni-toring objectives and selecting a setof methods to achieve those objec-tives from all of the available tech-niques. The Quivira Coalition isusing a newly developed manual onrangeland monitoring from theUSDA in structuring the data weare collecting from our various on-the-ground projects. Scientists atthe USDA Jornada ExperimentalRange are developing this manualwith the Environmental ProtectionAgency.

The manual is divided intofour sections. Sections 1 and 2describe how to design and imple-ment a monitoring program for awatershed or allotment. Section 3provides details on each of the 10types of measurements that may beincluded. The measurements de-scribed in these sections are designedfor completion every 1 to 5 years.Few monitoring programs will in-clude all 10 measurements. Section4 describes how to enter and inter-pret the data. Appendices includeinformation on qualitative evalua-tion systems for upland and riparianareas, estimating vegetation produc-tion, and calculating stocking ratesfor livestock.

The approach described inthe manual:

—Combines rapid, quali-tative approaches (developed byNRCS and BLM) with easily ap-plied quantitative techniques, allow-ing field-based monitoring at the

(con’t on page 18)

Monitoringand theUSDA’sRangelandMonitoringManualby Dr. Kris Havstad

“The purpose of amonitoring program is toprovide repeated andrelevant interpretations ofrangeland health that canbe related to managementimpacts. Theseinterpretations can thenprovide a basis forevaluating and adjustingthose managementactions.”

November 1999

16

(con’t on page 17)

wind gusts past you and propels amare’s tail of dust into the air anddown into the town of Miami. Inthe restaurants there they jokeabout eating “tailings tacos.”

Next, you walk out ontothe part of the waste pile on whichTerry Wheeler and his cows haverestarted the natural ecosystem pro-cesses associated with functioning

grasslands. Here, grass reaches toyour knees, in some places higher.You notice that it’s cooler here,too, and that the wind’s not asstrong because the plants diffusethe heat rays and break up thewind currents. When you lookdown, you notice that there is stillplenty of bare dirt between theplants, but in these areas you see athick thatch of hay trampled intothe soil, armoring it against ero-sion. As you look closer, you seedeer droppings and then the drop-pings of other animals. There

were no such signs of life over onthe untreated tailings.

If I were to ask you whichof these two places is healthiest,the grazed or the ungrazed one,what would you say? If you haveany trouble answering at all, con-sider what the plants have said.What have the deer said? Whatdoes the wind say? Have they said

land is automaticallyunhealthy if it’s grazed?

60 Years of RestNot too far from

Terry Wheeler’s minetailings restoration, abarbed-wire fence sepa-rates a ten-acre water-shed study plot from thesurrounding desertrangeland. A sign insidethe exclosure indicatesthat the land within thefence has been protectedfrom livestock grazingsince 1934—more than60 years. The land out-side the exclosure hascontinued to be grazedby cattle for those same60+ years.

The startling thing aboutthis living comparison is that bothsides of the fence are virtually thesame. More than 60 years of pro-tection has produced no more di-versity, no more grass, no morewildlife on the protected side thanon the unprotected side. And onthe unprotected or grazed side,more than 60 years of continueduse, or as some would call it, abuse,has produced no less vegetationand wildlife and no more bare

What About Nature?(con’t from page 5)

Dr. Scott Stoleson and David Ogilvie (right) looking for Flycatchers on the U Bar.

November 1999

17

What About Nature?(con’t from page 16)

ground than on the “protected”side. This plot is not some oddballanomaly. Hundreds, maybe thou-sands, of similar comparisons existall over the West. Of the scores Ihave seen, all have been just asunsupportive of the absolutist as-sumptions most of us make whenwe learn that a piece of land hasbeen grazed or not.

What Is Nature Telling Us?Consider what Nature is

telling us in the places I’ve justdescribed. When we do some-thing that affects the environment(which is almost everything wedo), the language which Natureuses to tell us whether it works ornot is results.

Actions directed towardNature are questions—”Does thiswork?” “If we do this, do we getwhat we want?”

Results are the answers.Bare dirt is an answer. So are twoplaces that are identical in spite ofthe fact that they are being man-aged in ways most of us see as theantithesis of one another. In thiscase, the answer is: “No differ-ence.”

When we pay attention tothose answers, we engage in a func-tional conversation with Nature—a dialogue. When we don’t payattention, we make what Naturehas to say irrelevant in the sameway we make what anyone saysirrelevant when we ask a questionand don’t listen to their reply.

By giving us a riparian for-est full of proliferating flycatchersand by growing grass in an areawhere all other efforts to grow ithave failed, it seems to me thatNature has said, “Yes, this works,”

with regard to what Terry Wheelerand David Ogilvie have done. Bygiving pioneers like these the re-markable results they haveachieved, it seems clear that Na-ture has said in no uncertain termsthat it is illegitimate to assume thatif land is grazed, then it must beunhealthy.

Getting back to that fencethat’s grazed on one side and noton the other—by giving us thesame results on both sides of thatfence, Nature seems to be sayingthat it is also illegitimate to assumethat land that’s not grazed is al-ways healthier than similar landthat is. And, since that fence linecomparison is only a few milesfrom the place where TerryWheeler has used grazing tojumpstart the natural processeswhich create and sustain a func-tioning grassland, it would seemthat Nature is telling us that pro-tection is not even more “natural”than grazing. In fact, in some casesit is less so.

The Quivira Coalition iscurrently engaged in a number ofresults-based dialogues with Na-ture around New Mexico. Oneinvolves Terry Wheeler on a mine-site restoration within the RioPuerco watershed near Cuba (seepage 8). Another is a riparianrecovery along Macho Creek nearDeming. At present, we’re justasking questions, which meanswe’re taking action. And whilewe’re at it, we’re monitoring closelyto make sure we don’t miss any ofNature’s replies. As we get thoseanswers, we’ll be sure to pass themon to you via this newsletter. Sostay tuned.

Help!We are in desperate

need of some volunteerhelp. We have grownmuch faster than our

funds and we need help(which may turn into

paying jobs) withBOOKEEPING and

GENERAL CLERICALwork. If you are

interested in helping theQuivira Coalition out,

please contact ourExecutive Director,Courtney White, at

505-820-2544.

And thank you!

November 1999

18

enough rest—the source of over-grazing—or the wrong type of rest,also carries ecological costs. A com-promise of the two, which mightanger both ranchers and environ-mentalists simultaneously, may notbe acceptable to federal land man-agers or to a judge.

At the same time, what’sgood for the environment may bebad for recreation, or the preserva-tion of cultural resources, or publicrelations. Grazing cattle in Chacois almost certainly out of the ques-tion, no matter what benefit it mighthave for the environment. Pre-scribed fire might be a problem aswell.

Yet, as a trained archae-ologist, I worry that Chaco’s world-class archaeological treasures arebeing threatened by the effect ofaccelerating erosion from deterio-rating environmental conditions in,and around, the park.

Nevertheless, my trip toChaco reinforced my belief thatbefore we can talk about archaeol-ogy, or fire, or grazing, we need tounderstand clearly the conditionson the ground in front of us. Ob-jective data-gathering is an essen-tial foundation for decision-mak-ing, and a prerequisite for combat-ing the inflexibility that permeatesso much of the grazing debate.

But we can’t stop there.The next chore will be to bringtogether a confluence of like-minded values to solve problems—such as how to restore Chaco’s wa-tersheds to health without compro-mising its cultural resources, or itsattractiveness to the tax-paying pub-lic.

Facts can be our stepping-stones, but only if we are willing towalk toward a common goal.

To Rest, orNot to Rest

(con’t from page 7) landscape level.—Integrates soil and veg-

etative indicators.—Is designed to quantify

the potential of the system to sup-port a range of societal values ratherthan to support any particular value:to resist degradation and to recoverfollowing degradation.

—Is flexible and can be eas-ily adapted to local conditions andobjectives:

Both upland and ripar-ian areas. Many measurements arecommon to both, reducing trainingtime and increasing efficiency. Oth-ers are designed to capture theunique characteristics of riparianareas.

Different monitoring ob-jectives, expertise, and time avail-able. Decision trees and tablesallow the user to base site selection,indicator selection, and the numberof measurements on monitoring ob-jectives and the time available. Mea-surements can also be modified de-pending on knowledge of, for ex-ample, local flora.

Different managementobjectives. Both the quantitativeand qualitative systems are designedto provide information which sup-ports a broad range of managementobjectives. Additional methods areincluded which provide more spe-cific information.

—Is supported by an ongo-ing research program in which indi-cators are being directly calibratedto specific ecosystem functions.

Rangeland managers arecurrently editing a draft version ofthis manual prior to its publicationin 2000. The Quivira Coalitionwill be sponsoring workshops onmonitoring during 2000.

Monitoring(con’t from page 15)

“. . .we need to under-stand clearly the condi-

tions on the ground infront of us. Objectivedata-gathering is an

essential foundation fordecision-making, and a

prerequisite for combatingthe inflexibility that

permeates so much of thegrazing debate.”

(All photos in this issue arecourtesy of Courtney White.)

November 1999

19

(con’t on page 20)

we’ve witnessed tremendous advance-ments in our knowledge of ourselvesas organisms. Our understandings ofour anatomy, our physiology, our nu-tritional requirements, the clinicalbasis for evaluating our psyche, ourreproductive functions and behaviors,and our intellectual capacity are trulystartling. This knowledge is fromwhole organism to sub-cellular, andfrom conception to death. Yet, westill are faced with significant gaps inour knowledge of critical elementsinfluencing our individual survival,such as cures for certain diseases, vari-able consequences of aging, intrica-cies of our genetic code, and environ-mental influences on emotional de-velopment.

For example, there is no clearscientific basis supporting a specific“blue-print” for a parent to follow inrearing a child. Certainly, there arebasic ethical beliefs for a particularculture within our society that mightguide child rearing. However, a singlemethodology derived from hypoth-esis-based scientific experimentationand that services all possible combi-nations of parents, children, and en-vironments does not exist. The sci-ence-based knowledge we have todayprovides the opportunity to raisehealthy, well-educated children withlonger life spans. Yet, how we accom-plish that is still subject to debate,trial and error, opinion, prior experi-ences, outside influences, sudden dis-ruptions, changing environments,cultural traditions, community mo-res, and individual characteristics.

Like the human sciences, wehave an impressive knowledge baseabout specific processes that occurwithin ecosystems where we live. Weunderstand many basic elements ofnutrient cycling, primary production,and soil genesis, for example. Thisunderstanding has been rapid giventhat studies about nature and ourenvironment are relatively recent.

(The term “ecosystem” was not de-fined until this century.) Yet, likehuman nature, there does not exist asingle science-based blueprint for howwe interact with our environment.The actual definition of ecology is thestudy of how organisms interact withtheir environment. Most of us areprobably at least amateur ecologistsin that we, at a minimum, try tounderstand and learn about our inter-actions with our environment. Thereare certainly some elements of ethicalbelief that permeate our understand-ings and shape our basic principlesguiding our interactions with our en-vironment. However, environmen-tal management is constrained by ourability to manipulate only a few com-ponents of a landscape.

Thousands of VariablesIt is difficult for us to man-

age growth and development of our-selves, our families, and our commu-nities, and management of arid andsemiarid lands is equally challenging.Rangeland ecosystems are a collectivemanifestation of thousands of vari-ables and millions of interactionsamong those variables. Rangelandsdon’t always “behave” in predictablefashions. Rangelands defy any easy,quick, simplistic encapsulation of theirresponses to livestock grazing, andthey challenge application of any spe-cific, single system, or blueprint, fortheir management.

There are no simple solu-tions, and we do a tremendous disser-vice to our understanding of our en-vironment if we insist on simple ex-planations. This need for depth inunderstanding is not new. Fifty yearsago, Lincoln Ellison wrote insightfullyabout rangelands in an article pub-lished in the Journal of Forestry (1949,vol. 47: 787-795):

“The man assigned the

Rangeland Ecologyand LivestockManagement(con’t from page 1)

“R“R“R“R“Rangelands donangelands donangelands donangelands donangelands don’’’’’tttttalways ‘behavalways ‘behavalways ‘behavalways ‘behavalways ‘behaveeeee’ in’ in’ in’ in’ inprprprprpredictable fashions.edictable fashions.edictable fashions.edictable fashions.edictable fashions.RRRRRangelands defy anyangelands defy anyangelands defy anyangelands defy anyangelands defy anyeasyeasyeasyeasyeasy, quick, simplistic, quick, simplistic, quick, simplistic, quick, simplistic, quick, simplisticencapsulation of theirencapsulation of theirencapsulation of theirencapsulation of theirencapsulation of theirrrrrresponses to livesponses to livesponses to livesponses to livesponses to livestockestockestockestockestockgrgrgrgrgrazing, and theazing, and theazing, and theazing, and theazing, and theyyyyychallenge application ofchallenge application ofchallenge application ofchallenge application ofchallenge application ofany specific, singleany specific, singleany specific, singleany specific, singleany specific, singlesystem, or blueprint, forsystem, or blueprint, forsystem, or blueprint, forsystem, or blueprint, forsystem, or blueprint, fortheir management.”their management.”their management.”their management.”their management.”

November 1999

20

(con’t on page 21)

management of . . .range land facesproblems whose final solutions re-quire years of scientific study, but heis expected to deliver immediate an-swers that are both correct and prac-tical. With the help of a few ecologi-cal principles he must be his ownscientist, and by observation ascer-tain what standards he can use forrange in ideal condition, on a varietyof sites. He must appraise the condi-tion of each site—the character of soilerosion, vegetal cover, and plant com-position in relation to the site’s poten-tialities. Finally, he must weigh theevidences of change, to ascertainwhether range trend is toward oraway from the kind of plant coverand soil stability that is desired.”

Today, both genders are in-volved in land management, but theessence of Ellison’s remarks remainsrelevant. Ellison, and others whoworked on and wrote about range-lands during the first half of this cen-tury, recognized that these were notsimple, easily understood systems. Forexample, Ellison observed that siteshad several potentials, and under-standing took years of study. Ellison’sremarks also acknowledged that fac-tors other than forage conditions, suchas soil stability and species diversity,were important in evaluating the con-dition of land. Interestingly, later inhis article Ellison used the term“rangeland health” to reflect stan-dards of soil stability and species com-position for rangelands. Rangelandhealth is a term we are returning totoday.

Four Management ObjectivesWe have made advances since

1949 in our understanding of eco-logical principles, the mechanismsdriving ecological change, and char-acteristics of ecological sites. In think-ing about management of rangelandstoday, we can build on Ellison’s com-ments of 50 years ago. We should

strive for four objectives in managinglivestock grazing on New Mexico’srangelands. 1) We should have someunderstanding of the ecological pro-cesses that characterize specific grazedenvironments. 2) We should knowlocal conditions that modify thoseecological processes within these en-vironments. 3) We should monitorgrazed environments in order to evalu-ate ecological responses to manage-ment. 4) We should be able to adjustmanagement actions appropriately inresponse to monitored observations.Working towards these objectives cancreate a knowledge base for grazingmanagement.

Ecosystems are defined ascommunities of organisms and theirenvironment. In reality, communi-ties and their respective environmentscan span from microscopic to globalscales. Most often though, we prob-ably think of ecosystems in scales weinteract with, characterized by dis-tinctive plant assemblages across thelandscape. We know a tremendousamount about individual processescharacteristic of our ecosystems, butmuch less about their collective inter-actions. We know a lot about theeffects of drivers (drought and fire,for example), but less about how todrive the system ourselves. We knowa tremendous amount about pastmanifestations of these ecosystems,and much less about future trajecto-ries.

This confession of insuffi-cient knowledge should not be dis-counted as a typical lament of a scien-tist. It’s understood that we will neverhave complete knowledge, and thatmanagement decisions and publicpolicy regarding rangelands will con-tinue to be made from a limited knowl-edge base. However, it is importantto recognize that we understand somepieces of the ecosystem puzzle, but

Rangeland Ecologyand LivestockManagement

(con’t from page 19)

Would you like to jointhe Quivira Coalition? While wehave are beginning to receive grantmoney, we still rely heavily ondonations. If you would like tohelp us continue our educationalmission, please send your contri-bution with this form to our SantaFe address.

Yes! I would like to jointhe Quivira Coalition. I can con-tribute:

___$15

___$30

___$50

___$100

___Other

Contributions entitle youto receive this newsletter, noticesof upcoming events and publica-tions, and preference in enroll-ment for our Outdoor Classrooms.

Thank You!

JOIN US!

November 1999

21

(con’t on page 22)

many pieces need more clarification,and that there is no one set way tomanage the pieces of all our differentenvironments. What we strive for issustainability.

SustainabilityIn general, sustainability re-

fers to the maintenance of ecologicalintegrity over time. However, anexact definition of “sustainability” hasbeen elusive. It has been argued thatthe application of sustainability torangelands is nonsensical for two rea-sons. First, rangelands are dynamicand subject to change, defying thenotion of long-term stability. Sec-ond, ecosystems by definition sustainuse or they would cease to exist. Yet,if human use of rangelands is consid-ered, and some economically baseduse is involved, the concept of sus-tainable use as a goal has value.

Sustainable use can be de-fined as an appropriation of produc-tion (such as biomass used by grazinglivestock) that allows for natural pro-cesses to replace appropriated materi-als. This means that standards of useor consumption are, in some fashion,gauged to the natural limits of anecosystem. This is what the meldingof ecological principles and grazingmanagement is all about today, and iswhat Ellison was trying to convey inhis article in 1949. Thus, at thecenter of grazing management is theneed to be able to evaluate rangelandenvironments.

Management ProblemsOur primary problems re-

lated to management of livestock graz-ing are those we have continuallydealt with throughout the 20th cen-tury: 1) coping with variations (spa-tial and temporal) in forage produc-tion, 2) manipulating an animal be-havior process (grazing) that is plantspecies specific, and 3) managing graz-ing across landscapes with limited (if

any) measurements to monitor orassess impacts. Fortunately, there aremanagement tools, such as conserva-tive stocking and seasonal use, pre-scribed burning, and herding, thatare effective in managing these prob-lems.

Basically, though, what wewant to manage for is plant produc-tion. This is not to be viewed asmyopically managing for forage pro-duction, but as a much broader objec-tive related to the composition andfunctioning of ecosystems. There aremany processes that we can not effec-tively manage, but key processes re-lated to plant production, such asgermination, seedling establishment,and plant growth are processes we canimpact.

Additionally, there is a tre-mendous knowledge base related tofactors that influence plant produc-tion processes that we can employ inour management. Plant productionprocesses serve as a means for organiz-ing our knowledge about rangelands,and structuring our management. Forexample, plant productivity is stronglycontrolled by the availability and dis-tribution of water and nutrients. So,it is not just if and when it rains, buthow that moisture moves and is storedacross the landscape. Other impor-tant processes, such as decompositionand mineralization are affected bymoisture distribution. We can baseour management actions on how weimpact properties of these landscapesthat are related to these key processes.It is then important that we base ourevaluation of our management, ourmonitoring actions, on indicators ofthese important properties.

MonitoringCurrently, we identify three

general elements of these systems formonitoring that directly relate to plant

Rangeland Ecologyand LivestockManagement(con’t from page 20)

“. . .there is a tremendousknowledge base related tofactors that influenceplant productionprocesses that we canemploy in ourmanagement.”

November 1999

22

Rangeland Ecologyand LivestockManagement

(con’t from page 21)

production. These are: 1) the types,proportions, and distributions ofplants (biotic integrity), 2) soil ero-sion rates and soil compaction (sitestability), and 3) water flows and in-filtration capacity (hydrologic func-tion). These elements are linked toobservable features of the systemwhich reflect key processes related tothe functioning of the system. Noone element, or indicator of an ele-ment, can be used to judge range-land health.

Indicators of biotic integrityinclude plant community composi-tion and distribution, amount of bareground, diversity of plant functionalgroups, plant demographics (such asevidence of mortality or decadence),amount of litter, annual production,and perennial plant reproductive ca-pability.

Indicators of soil and site sta-bility include presence of pedestalplants, soil surface resistance to ero-sion, extent of soil loss, and extent ofwind scoured areas.

Indicators of hydrologicfunction include presence of rills andgullies, water flow patterns, and dis-tribution of litter.

These and other indicatorscan be evaluated qualitatively or, inmany cases, quantitatively in objec-tive and repeatable fashions. Basingour evaluations on a suite of indica-tors related to these processes pro-vides an ecological framework forstructuring grazing management as asustainable activity. This also pro-vides us a means for logically andscientifically interacting with theseintricate ecosystems. In this mannerwe have advanced our managementbeyond the setting Ellison describedin 1949.

Melding Ecology andManagement

There are three central pos-tulates that describe the ecological

character of rangelands: 1) plant com-munities and production are stronglyinfluenced by just a few species, 2)plant dominance within these com-munities is often long-lived, and 3)there are transitional thresholds asone community changes to another.The driving forces of these changesare typically environmental stresses,especially drought or prolonged ab-sence of fire, and these stresses can beamplified by mismanagement, espe-cially overgrazing.

We have two primary man-agement options: 1) we can manipu-late vegetation structure in direct andindirect ways, and 2) we can affectplant and animal production by ad-justing our controls over livestock.These options are employed basedprimarily on the condition of theland. For lands in satisfactory healthwe manipulate secondary consumers(primarily livestock, but on manyranges this can also include manipu-lations of wild or feral herbivores).For rangelands at risk, we would di-rect our attention towards the pri-mary producers (the plants), and af-fect processes related to plant produc-tion. For seriously degraded lands wewould gear our attention towards thephysical environment (such as meth-ods to rebuild soil). In all cases, ouractions require evaluations based onecological conditions.

One additional challenge weface in rangeland management is iden-tifying the spatial scale for manage-ment. Rangelands are actually anested set of spatial scales, from indi-vidual plants, to plant communities,to landscapes, and to regional scales.Management actions need to be struc-tured to spatial scales that can beobserved and manipulated in an eco-nomical manner. Often, this will beaccomplished at relatively small scales.It is unlikely that site-specific infor-

(con’t on page 23)

QuiviraCoalitionWebsite

We are pleased toannounce that our

website is up and run-ning! You can visit us

online atwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.quiviracoalition.org.quiviracoalition.org.quiviracoalition.org.quiviracoalition.org.quiviracoalition.org

November 1999

23

Rangeland Ecologyand LivestockManagement(con’t from page 22)

mation will be available for each man-aged situation. Management will re-quire application of ecological prin-ciples, modifying this application tolocal conditions, monitoring re-sponses, and adjusting actions basedon these observations. This manage-ment model represents a melding ofour knowledge of range ecology withour knowledge of grazing manage-ment practices. It is similar to theprocess Ellison described, but basedon a much-improved knowledge baseregarding ecological processes andevaluating the health of these range-lands. Today, we label this model“adaptive management.” At the cen-

they’re going wrong.”Of course, a prerequisite to

discovering answers is a willingnessto ask questions in the first place.

The Ultimate GoalCharlie’s objective was to

create a monitoring system that wassimple to use, scientifically cred-ible, and rancher friendly. It is basedon the belief that economic healthflows from environmental health—that you can’t have one without theother. The ultimate goal of LandEKG is to achieve both.

And that’s the aspiration ofthe Davis family as well.

As the next generation ofDavis kids grow up (there are eightso far) thoughts turn inevitably tothe future of the CS. As develop-ment pressure increases on all sidesof the ranch, the prospects for busi-ness-as-usual, even by the progres-sive standards of the Davis family,grow more complicated. Monitor-ing will help them face an uncertain

The CS Ranch(con’t from page 11)

ter of adaptive management is thesame need that Ellison described; wemust be educated and practiced ob-servers of our environment.

I’m not sure what someonemight write 50 years from now aboutour 1999 perceptions on rangelandmanagement. I would hope that itwould be as complimentary as myassessment of the relevance of Ellison’s1949 remarks. If we base our under-standing, our evaluations, and ourmanagement on ecological principles,then what we are working towardstoday should remain relevant. Moreimportantly, working from an eco-logical basis will ensure that 50 yearsfrom now we are managing these re-sources in a sustainable fashion.

future with necessary facts and fig-ures, but it cannot solve every prob-lem—a situation confronting ranch-ers all over the West.

One answer might be moreaffection, as author Wendell Berryput it—affection of people for theland, and for each other. The enor-mous amount of affection the Davisfamily has for its ranch, and for eachother, is obvious and will undoubt-edly carry them through adversityand uncertainty.

Another word for affectionis respect; and if life teaches us any-thing, it teaches that respect is thekey to success—respect for the natu-ral world that sustains us, and re-spect for fellow human beings wholive in, and care about, that world.Respect is the glue that binds ustogether and helps us endure change.

Of course, curiosity can helptoo.

The CS RanchJulia Davis-StaffordP.O. Box 518Raton, NM 87740

Land EKGCharlie Orchard6085 Browning LaneBozeman, MT 59718(406) 582-7480or (888) 450-5354corchard@montana.net

Coalition QuiviraThe

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

UPCOMING EVENTS

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDSanta Fe, NMPermit No. 523

ANNOUNCING A THREE-DAY WORKSHOP ON LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENTNovember 17-19, 1999

Quemado, New MexicoThe Quivira Coalition and the Catron County Farm Bureau are pleased to announce a three-day

class on ecologically sensitive livestock management to be held in Quemado, NM. The class will be taughtby Kirk Gadzia.WHEN: November 17-19 (Wednesday through Friday), 8am to 4pm.WHERE: Quemado Community Center.WHO: Total attendance will be 25 people maximum. Reserved for Catron County residents first,

non-residents will be included if there is room.COST: $100 for Catron County residents ($150 for non-residents) That’s $400 off Kirk’s regular

price!!The class will cover the basic principles of conservation ranching. Don’t miss this outstanding

opportunity to learn from one of the best teachers in the country!! For reservations, call Courtney Whiteat 505-820-2544. A deposit of $65 will be required to hold a place.

Tour Jim Winder’s RanchSaturday, January 22, 2000

Jim will lead a free four-hour tour of his ranch. Learn about cattle rotation, range ecology,biodiversity, economics, and other cool stuff. Enjoy the open spaces and blue skies of southern New Mexico.We will assemble at 10 a.m. at Jim’s house, located two miles north of Nutt, New Mexico. Take I-25 toHatch, then drive 19 miles west on Highway 26 to Nutt (or 29 miles east from Deming). Bring a lunch,water, a hat, and sunscreen. For more information, call Courtney White at 505-820-2544.

An Evening with Sid Goodloe: Conservation Easements and Land TrustsTBA in Santa Fe in February 2000

Sid will come and speak on the workings of conservation easements and their utility in protectingrangeland from development and his efforts to establish a Land Trust. Further information will beforthcoming in the next newsletter.