The Fourth Grazing Lands Forum

WATER QUALITY AND GRAZING LAND MANAGEMENT: THE FIRST FORUM

The first Forum involved an exchange of viewpoints between members for over a year on the topic of grazing land management's effects on water quality. A meeting was held on May 20-22, 1986, at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Six issue areas were identified and discussed:

1. grazing management in riparian zones;
2. the role of assessing and managing biophysical factors;
3. the need for and limitations to assessing economic costs and benefits;
4. managing for the social needs of various user groups;
5. increasing understanding through education and cooperation; and
6. public policy options for improving grazing management to protect water resources.

At the completion of the meeting, members found agreement on a long-term, multiple use framework for managing grazing lands and disagreement on how this land management ethic could be implemented. Perhaps the central question distilled from the discussion was "Who benefits from and who pays for multiple use management?" With that question in mind, the GLF Executive Committee decided to look deeper into multiple use management of grazing lands in the second Forum.

MULTIPLE USE VALUES OF GRAZING LANDS: THE SECOND FORUM

The Second Forum focused on ways in which management can capitalize on multiple use values of grazing lands. It was agreed that the Forum also needed to move beyond improving communication between Forum members and exercise a more forceful role in educating the public and policy makers in the need for and obstacles to multiple use management of grazing lands. A forum was held on October 5-7, 1987. Issues addressed included:

1. institutional barriers to multiple use management;
2. changing people's attitudes about multiple use;
3. benefits and costs of multiple use management;
4. improving technology transfer for multiple use management;
5. promoting multiple use management on private land; and
6. the Clean Water Act and multiple use management.

Forum participants and the Executive Committee agreed on a number of steps to further explore multiple use of grazing lands, including: establishment of a GLF newsletter; informal meetings coincident with member organization meetings; and documentation of successful multiple use projects in the West.

GRAZING LANDS AND THE CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM: THE THIRD FORUM

For the Third Forum, GLF focused more specifically on a topic of current interest to resource policy makers: the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) established in Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, our current farm legislation. The Third Forum, held on October 11-13, 1988, identified grazing land conservation opportunities and concerns that could be successfully addressed by the CRP concept. Participants addressed opportunities in the current CRP, including existing contracts and new contracts within the existing 45 million acre limit, and new opportunities for grazing and crop lands envisioned for 1990 farm legislation. Both near-term opportunities within existing 10-year contracts and opportunities after current contracts expire were considered. Specific issues addressed included:

1. research, evaluation and monitoring of CRP;
2. long-term use of CRP lands;
3. management of CRP lands under contract;
4. use of CRP lands;
5. changes or expansions of the CRP concept; and
6. wildlife and environmental issues raised by CRP.

Forum participants identified common themes and possible roles for GLF member organizations, including the following:

1. Establishment of technical committees to develop criteria for environmentally sensitive lands, to refine the concept of a "conservation land link" for joining CRP lands with riparian or windbreak corridors, and to develop demonstration projects on CRP lands.
2. Influencing CRP implementation by encouraging long-term conserving uses and pushing for longer-term CRP contracts.
3. Acting in concert to help frame conservation and commodity policies for the 1990 Farm Bill that would encourage long-term resource planning.

STRATEGIC PLANNING/POSITIONING FOR THE FUTURE: THE FOURTH FORUM

The Executive Committee felt that the first three Forums were successful and fulfilled a definite need. The work of GLF and its member organizations is gaining recognition and support. However, situations and conditions have changed somewhat since GLF was organized in 1985.

It was time to review the purpose and structure of the Grazing Lands Forum, and to identify future GLF topics and activities in light of evolving new national issues and concerns. To be responsive to member organization needs and to attract new members, the Fourth Forum was devoted to developing an action plan for the future. The planning determined future program directions and activities and also identified member organizations and individuals who are able and willing to carry out the program.

KEYNOTE SPEECH

by Peter Myers, President, Farm Credit Council and former Deputy Secretary of Agriculture

Peter Myers felt comfortable addressing GLF because he has dealt with grazing land issues over the entire course of his career, as a farmer, as Chief of the Soil Conservation Service, and as Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. As President of the Farm Credit Council, he will continue to deal with these issues because the Farm Credit system has a large stake in grazing lands, as well as other agricultural resources.

Myers said that the sight of cattle grazing in pastures near his Harpers Ferry home refreshes him after grappling with difficult issues in Washington by making him continually aware of the fundamental resources on which farming depends.

Myers detected some frustration in GLF deliberations over the problem of getting all groups across the spectrum of grazing interests together and in getting the public to accurately perceive the values and needs of grazing lands. Myers said our concerns were deeply rooted and as old as the Bible, where Genesis says that man was given dominion over the animals. All public policy decisions and most resource issues are immersed in public perceptions and we can't escape responsibility for trying to improve public perceptions of grazing lands. The public is aware of problems with grazing lands. The cattle that he sees grazing are on poor pastures with thistles and much of the population is aware of problems on the public grazing lands of the West.

Peter Myers focused first on some well-meaning critiques of existing grazing land management. He warned that some groups feel there are reasons to take cattle off the public grazing lands. The animal right's movement wants to regulate treatment of livestock. Myers felt that most of the supporters of these groups have good intentions, but are easily misled into extreme positions. His answer to these challenges was a call for GLF to exercise more enlightened leadership and recognize that it is a constant battle to get the "right" answers across to the public. He warned that common sense may not always prevail, nor may good research always be heard above the din of political struggles over resource issues.

Turning to private grazing lands, Myers noted that while these are not public lands, the public increasingly has something to say about how landowners manage their lands. This trend is clear in the area of offsite effects on water quality, but may not have emerged so clearly in the area of grazing management. Myers pointed out that it was not a big step, however, from concerns over nutrient management from animal waste to other aspects of grazing land management.

Myers supported the Conservation Reserve Program, saying it was a major conservation success. The issue now is how to keep CRP land in grass. He felt that if CRP land comes back into production it should definitely be under stringent conservation planning and should be required to meet soil loss tolerance limits (T values). Myers felt that some additional incentives were probably needed to keep CRP land in grass after contracts expire and that even more land could be identified for retirement.

However, Myers said that many leaders in Washington and in agribusiness are nervous about having too much land tied up in long-term conservation uses. The United States is the only country with a long-term conservation retirement program and we could be sacrificing our role in agricultural export markets by pursuing CRP.

Myers felt that GLF could help provide some of the answers to CRP-related questions by encouraging good research on forbs and grasses and the animals that eat it. As an example, Myers speculated that advances in biotechnology could lead to new livestock systems with 90 percent of feed from grass and only 10 percent in the feedlot for finishing.

Myers felt that research could address concerns raised over animal welfare issues and could inform public perceptions of these issues. The battle will be in the media and on the ground with farmers and ranchers. GLF needs to have more industry representatives because they are more influential with farmers than government or scientific representatives. GLF also needs representation from the environmental activists, dealing with them so they can see the producer's point of view.

Myers encouraged GLF members not to become discouraged. He warned that the problems will never go away, that there will be a constant battle to provide good information and see that it gets a hearing.

Peter Myers addressed other topics in questions from the floor, including:

• Diversification--Grazing lands managers need to be developing new markets for traditional products and to meet competition from such imports as New Zealand and Australian lambs and sheep. Also, there are opportunities for some in niche markets for beefalo, red deer and other exotic products. The livestock industry needs to go back to breeding and to use biotechnology to develop new animals that will utilize forages and other feeds better to produce more on our land.
  
  
• Credit--Myers said that it is still possible for a good manager to invest in forage improvement, but the emphasis is on good management and a good plan. He sees more and more rented land in the mix with greater emphasis on management to earn a good return.
  
  
• Management education--Myers noted that it is more important than ever for younger farmers to get education for integrated management. The suppliers of that education may be changing since we increasingly need a team of specialists. The old-style general county extension agent may not fill the bill. Certification of professional farm management specialists may be an answer and some of the farm lenders may require it as a condition on loans.
  
  
• Cattlemen and CRP grazing use--Cattlemen are beginning to see the value of CRP for emergency grazing use, particularly during the drought. Some hay growers were upset. CRP will come out of grass gradually since it went in gradually. Additional incentives are needed to keep it in grass. It may only take $10 per acre and the right to use CRP land for grazing to hold it, but is OMB and Congress willing to do it? If CRP land does come into production, it should be required to meet T value.
  
  
• Public relations--Does GLF need a public relations expert to help influence public perceptions? Yes, but where will the money come from? Producer groups are taxing themselves with check offs to provide money for ad campaigns. Corn producers and the ethanol industry are stressing the environmental aspects of ethanol. The cattlemen are worried about cholesterol, but could become concerned about grazing lands. Bankers need more help with management, including conservation management, and could rely on GLF for advice.
  
  
• Sustainable agriculture--The current emphasis on sustainable agriculture is not necessarily the turning point on maximum output farming. The emphasis still has to be on net return, not gross receipts. LISA fits into that picture, but has to be proven at the bottom line, and that's economics. Farmers have to manage to stay in business. Land is profitable now and it wasn't in the mid-1980s, because land has been devalued. The external costs of maintaining water quality will make it harder for farmers to remain profitable unless they change their practices. This was the reason for government's role in the CRP. Should we make the landowner deal with it on his own?
  
  
• Crop base--We don't have too much crop base, that's just a gimmick to get OMB to buy off on the farm program. We probably will continue to have farm programs since the Europeans won't give up enough in the GATT negotiations to allow us to do away with programs. Farmers know to keep their crop base over the long term. It is politically very tough to remove base from the CRP land, which is why we had to preserve base in the CRP program. If you want to retire CRP crop base, you'll have to pay them to get out.
  
  
• Public role in farm policy--The general public will have more to do with the farm bill through activist groups. This will come about because of water quality issues, sustainability, and the cost of farm programs.

GRAZING LANDS ISSUES

In preparation for the Forum, member organizations were asked to identify grazing land issues appropriate for GLF to address in the future. The issues identified were compiled by Paul McCawley and sorted into five substantive categories and one concerned with GLF's role, as follows:

• Group 1 Research and Management of Grazing Lands
• Group 2 Public Perceptions About Grazing Lands
• Group 3 Public Policy Impacts on Grazing Lands
• Group 4 Economic Sustainability of Grazing Lands
  
  
  • Role of Grazing Lands -- The Federal Agenda
  • GLF Role

Public policy and the Federal agenda were combined to give four substantive issues. The GLF role was to be discussed in all four groups. These issues will be at the heart of GLF's activities over the next few years as well as topics of discussion at other conferences and meetings.

FORUM ISSUE WORKING GROUPS

Following the keynote address, participants broke into four Issue Working Groups to pursue each of the topics identified from issues submitted in response to the questionnaire. Facilitators working with the Forum assigned the groups three tasks to complete over the course of the Forum, using nominal group techniques. The tasks were:

• Task 1: Define what role GLF should assume in addressing issues.
• Task 2: Develop an Action Plan for GLF to address the issue.
• Task 3: Decide what kind of organization GLF should be to address the Action Plan.

Each group reported their progress to the entire Forum after each task, receiving suggestions and responding to questions from all participants. Based on this feedback, the products of each task were continually refined.

A summary of the discussion and findings of each Issue Working Group is presented in the next section of the report.

GROUP 1: RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT OF GRAZING LANDS

Members:

ISSUE:

There is no commitment to meet the research and education needs of grazing lands. We must identify, develop, and characterize grazing land information needs with respect to both research and application of management technology on a State, regional, and nation al level. Inadequate research knowledge and insuffi cient application of existing knowledge limit optimum management of grazing lands.

FACTORS CONSIDERED:

• Characteristics that limit application of research.
• How can GLF do a better job?
• How does GLF generate funds?
• Determine the state of the art for BMPs and provide handbook for users.
• Who has responsibility for national coordination of range land research?
• What are the research priorities in grazing lands?
• There is no national plan for agriculture.
• Absence of national commitment to address priority science and education needs for grazing lands.

ROLE OF THE GRAZING LANDS FORUM:

The group thought that GLF could best serve in a communication and analysis or study role. GLF could identify high priority research and education issues relating to grazing lands management. GLF could then facilitate analyses of overall research and education issues identified. Finally, GLF could communicate these findings to public agencies and other organizations to help them place correct priorities on needed research and inclusion in agency and other programs.

There was some discussion of similarities between this kind of role and the role of the Center for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). Other agencies and organizations also identify research priorities, such as the Joint Council and the Science and Education Administration of USDA. However, none of these focuses directly on grazing lands issues.

ACTION PLAN:

1. Identify and prioritize research and education needs.
   • Organize workshops to identify needs.
   • Publish results of workshops.
   • Develop recommendations for further analysis.
   
   
   
2. Facilitate analysis of overall research and education needs.
   • Capture emphasis in existing reports and Congressional hearings.
   • Conduct data base and literature search.
   
   
   
3. Provide public agencies and others with grazing lands research and education needs and priorities for consideration and inclusion in agency and other programs.
   • Distribute reports.
   • Conferences, dialogues, one-on-one communications.

GROUP 2: PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF GRAZING LANDS ISSUES

Members:

ISSUE:

The public has a narrow perspective of the social and economic value of our grassland and forage resource, and does not recognize the role of management in its maintenance.

FACTORS CONSIDERED:

• Widespread public perception that all rangeland livestock grazing is detrimental to ecological quality and riparian, watershed, and wildlife values.
• Lack of understanding of the value of grazing land resources.
• Undeveloped and under utilized lands.
• How does the public derive its perception--Is the mechanism lack of education?
• Timeliness of action is behind public perception of range-lands.
• Public grazing lands have become the focus for public perceptions of all grazing lands, creating a skewed perception.
• Value of public and private rangelands and associated permits.
• The terms "grazing lands" and "rangelands" are key components to understanding and defining the issue.
• Who owns the land? What is the land doing? Who makes the decisions?
• Is grazing consistent with the public well being?
• Grazing is an important and necessary management tool.

ROLE OF THE GRAZING LANDS FORUM:

Group 2 saw GLF in a communication and education role, particularly at the local level. GLF would facilitate communication and education, rather than undertake action itself. The role played by the Great Plains Agricultural Council could be a model, but more focused on facilitation, rather than direct action. It could be that a Forum devoted to changing public perceptions should be attended by information specialists and public relations experts from the member agencies and organizations, rather than grazing lands management professionals.

ACTION PLAN:

1. Facilitate a study to identify categories of the public with perceptions that need to be addressed. By July 1991, GLF Executive Committee develop proposal, select lead agency to conduct survey, and find finances by tying the study to a national issue also dealing with public perceptions of resource issues.
2. Compile current sources of educational information. By October 1991, GLF should send a letter to agencies and other organizations requesting information and educational materials to use in countering or changing public perceptions found in step 1.
3. Determine how to effectuate perception changes. At October 1991 GLF meeting, bring together sociologists, educators, and public relations specialists to learn about ways to influence public perceptions.
4. Find a new name for the Grazing Lands Forum that depicts our role without negative connotations associated with "grazing" or "rangelands".

GROUP 3: PUBLIC POLICY FOR GRAZING LANDS

Members:

ISSUE:

Public concerns are growing over:

• Water quality
• Chemical use
• Riparian degradation
• Threatened and endangered species
• Similar issues

on public and private grazing lands. Legitimate concerns related to grazing land management (which may cause these problems) need to be identified and public policy revised or developed to respond to these.

FACTORS CONSIDERED:

• Are grazing lands interests being addressed in public policy?
• GLF should address legitimate public concerns.

ROLE OF THE GRAZING LANDS FORUM:

Group 3 also saw GLF in a communication and education role. GLF could be the focus for a variety of viewpoints to express their opinions about what are and are not legitimate public concerns about the management of private and public grazing lands. The group felt that legitimate concerns on public lands might be different than concerns about private lands. Concerns may also differ from region to region.

ACTION PLAN:

1. Hold 3 regional Forums in the Southeast, Great Plains/Midwest, and the West. Leadership in the Southeast would be provided by AFGC, in the Midwest by NACD, and in the West by SRM.
   • Enlist participation, yielding invitee list of approximately 100 in each region and commitments to attend.
   • Organize the Forums, including an agenda, identified speakers, physical arrangements, and registration materials.
   • Participate in Forums, GLF and invited organizations and individuals.
   • Write reports of the concerns expressed and discussion engendered. Develop a combined report that synthesizes the concerns expressed in each of the 3 regional Forums.
   • Disseminate reports, to participants and other interested parties in each region.
2. Prepare and distribute press releases from each of the 3 regional Forums to inform the general public.
3. Hold a Washington Seminar to communicate the concerns expressed at the regional Forums to agency staff, Congressional staff, the press, and national staff of interest groups.

GROUP 4: ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY OF GRAZING LANDS

Members:

ISSUE:

There is a need for sustainable agricultural management systems to profitably use grazing lands in an environmentally sound manner.

FACTORS CONSIDERED:

• What are current hot topics? trends?
• Ground water
• Sustainable agriculture (LISA) programming mentality
• Low cost equals profit
• Enterprise diversification
• Environmentally sound systems
• Acceptable to farmers
• Acceptable to the public
• Chemical-free meat

ROLE OF THE GRAZING LANDS FORUM:

Group 4 saw GLF as the catalyst in getting actors such as bankers, ranchers, universities, environmentalists and lawmakers to work together to develop sustainable, economic grazing systems. Action is needed in assessing the economic and environmental consequences of chemical impacts on grazing lands. An inventory of what chemicals are used and where they are used is needed. Economic and environmental analyses are needed to provide a regional assessment based on current knowledge. Forum goals would be to refine this assessment, explore reasons for short-comings in the knowledge base, and develop interdisciplinary strategies for proper input use to achieve profitable, environmentally sound chemical use.

ACTION PLAN:

1. Pre-Forum Preparation
   • Member organizations (professional societies and agencies) agree to lead inquiries and examine case studies of sustainable chemical use in their geographic areas of strength.
   • Each inquiry or case study is written up.
   • Selected GLF members agree to synthesize inquiries/case studies (ERS for economics, SRM and WSSA for environmental, cultural, and management).
   • Write up case study syntheses.
2. GLF Executive Committee and Forum Planning Committee organize a Forum
   • Agenda and goals for expected results of the Forum.
   • Presenters, facilitators.
   • Issue Work Groups synthesize, prioritize, and agree to actions.
3. GLF Executive Committee publish Forum proceedings
   • Member organizations agree to distribute.
   • Member organizations consult as needed.
4. Forum dialogue/synthesis
   • Identify common elements or factors, such as goals or training.
   • GLF debate, establish direction, and provide for feedback.
5. Post-Forum Action
   • Publish report or pamphlet.
   • Host conference to present findings.
   • Consult with action groups.

GENERAL SESSION: Restructuring GLF

The current organizational structure of GLF can be summarized as follows:

• Core or voting members currently number 15, but without changes in the Forum's direction certain organizations could drop out of GLF activities.
• Technical or nonvoting members include Federal agencies and nonprofit organizations, including Winrock International, as secretariat.
• Individual nonvoting members want to be involved in GLF.

Options for GLF's future included:

• Disband.
• Form a President's/Executive Council of the various grazing land organizations and agencies to
• Meet once a year in Washington
• Coordinate political agendas
• Coordinate calendars
• Plan and cosponsor activities.
• Continue with current GLF annual Forum, optionally adding the President's/Executive Council.
• Form a more complex GLF with multi-year activities and regional Forums.

Structural issues facing GLF include:

• Should Federal agencies be voting members and pay dues or "subscriptions"?
• How should the representative of an organization or agency be chosen?
• Does the representative receive the organization's direction?
• Does the representative provide feedback on GLF information to the organization?
• How should the billing cycle be managed?
• How should records and archives be maintained?
• How should core members be retained and new members recruited?
• What is GLF's financial situation?

Les Vough, GLF President, proposed the following changes to the GLF organizational structure, to be accomplished as soon as possible but definitely within one year:

• Change "Grazing Lands Forum" to remove production bias associated with "Grazing".
• Initiate a two-year planning process to provide for increased continuity.
• Have the following officers:
  • President
  • 1st and 2nd Vice Presidents
  • Executive Secretary
• Participation on an equal basis for all organizations and agencies.
• Individual members have a unique particaptory status.
• Every organization and agency to have a vote and representatives of all organizations and agencies eligible for office.
• Organization and agency representatives should be represented on the board of their parent organization or agency to instill ownership and ensure participation with representation.
• GLF Executive Committee members should be Executive Officers or at least board members on the boards of their parent organization or agency to instill ownership and commitment and to provide feedback to the parent organization or agency.
• GLF Board to consist of one representative of each organization or agency and one alternate, identified and appointed by the organization or agency, and the GLF officers, Past President, and At Large member.
• The GLF Secretary will maintain the flow of correspondence, issue a quarterly newsletter, work at the direction of the Executive Committee, and maintain records, archives, and finances.

The following schedule for succeeding Forums was proposed:

• 1990 Research and Extension Needs for Grazing Lands
• 1991 Pesticide Use and Management on Grazing Lands
• 1992 Grazing Lands and Public Policy

These recommendations were approved in general session and have been incorporated in the revised By Laws, revised in November 1989.

The Fifth Forum--The Fifth Grazing Lands Forum will discuss "Research and Extension Needs for Grazing Lands," at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, on October 29-31, 1990. This Forum will help identify and prioritize research and education needs related to grazing land use and management. Organizations or individuals interested in participating should contact Fee Busby, Executive Secretary at Winrock International or one of the Forum's other officers (see Appendix II).

APPENDIX I: Grazing Lands Issues

The issues for consideration by the Forum received from respondents were grouped by subject area and are presented in full below.

Group 1: RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT OF GRAZING LANDS

• Economics of grazing systems.
  
  
• Balancing rations of animals under different grazing and production systems.
  
  
• Status of our grazing lands, trends, use, and potential.
  
  
• Management of public rangelands and woodlands -- should they be consolidated under one government agency?
  
  
• Application of management technology and technology development to achieve goals for grazing land ecosystems and environmental.
  
  
• Grazing influence on water quality, erosion, and other environmental factors especially riparian habitats.
  
  
• Domestic grazing interaction with plant diversity, wildlife, and recreational users.
  
  
• Manipulation of ecosystem by domestic livestock.
  
  
• Compared to research dollars being spent in other areas, the amount being spent on agricultural research is very low. Grazing lands researchers have priorities which are not being addressed. How could GLF contribute to an expanded research program?
  
  
• Experimental stewardship programs and/or coordinated resource management programs have contributed to mutual understanding, better relationships and probably good management decisions regarding use of public lands. How could these activities be expanded successfully?
  
  
• Relationship of biotechnology to grazing lands. This is a difficult topic to address, but the BST (bovine somatrophic hormone) issue with milk production has clearly brought it home. Improved efficiency of plant production (soybeans, corn, etc.) will allow more land to be used for forages, but increased animal performance (i.e., BST, etc.) may require fewer acres of forage. What are the implications? How will biotechnology affect natural ecosystems?
  
  
• Forage seed production, plant patenting,, and seed laws. As private industry gets more involved in seed production, a new set of problems occurs relative to rights and privileges of producers and the seed industry. These is a growing awareness of a need to maintain quality seed available at a fair price. Will our current seed guidelines and laws be consistent with that desire?
  
  
• Grazing land users are all affected by climatic change which may cause drought, losses in natural productivity, and losses in the quality of grazing land uses.
  
  
• Grazing land users are dependent on resources from riparian areas which can be improved to increase the quantity and quality of on- and off-site uses.
  
  
• Grazing land managers will be required to implement "Best Management Practices" in each state. The BMP's may reduce flexibility in responding to climatic change and market changes.
  
  
• Warm season grasses or pastures, which really are the balancing of kinds of grasses in certain areas in the United States in order to create a balanced forage supply during the complete grazing season. Perhaps it should be considered, if for no other reason than to balance our agenda for the future by addressing all regions equally.
  
  
• Grazing lands and water quality preservation -- bring together information (positive or negative) relative to grazing lands and water quality.
  
  
• Weed control alternatives for grazing lands -- explore alternatives to the use of chemical herbicides.
  
  
• Weed and brush control on grasslands.

Group 2: PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS ABOUT GRAZING LANDS

• Public land grazing policy is an overwhelming issue in the western United States. The perception of these problems by the public and the eastern livestock industry is colored by the successful press that certain environmental groups (not all of them) have received. The necessity to present a reasonable evaluation of the issue nationally is of great importance. The GLF can served as one way of looking at the issues logically and presenting unbiased evaluations. This issue is national, however, not well understood at the national level.
  
  
• Widespread public perception that all range livestock grazing is detrimental to ecological quality and riparian, watershed and wildlife values. Loss of grazing privileges on public lands is only one potential outcome. There are nonpoint pollution and watershed concerns and who knows what else will eventually emerge to affect grazing on both private and public lands.

This is important because there continues to be numerous flagrant examples of abusive livestock grazing on both private and public lands in plain view of public roads frequented by recreationalists and others, especially from urban areas. These examples provide the basis for "horror" stores publicized to sway public opinion and, that the evidence exists, is indisputable.

Publicizing examples of good range management and beneficial livestock grazing, however good, has not been effective enough with the public to offset the anti-grazing campaign. Even more serious, it hasn't made apparent impact on those neighboring ranchers who continue to operate on a short-term, maximized- profit basis thereby creating these flagrant examples.

GLF might consider working with elected leaders of the range livestock industry to get this issue addressed openly with full recognition that some of their own members are creating and perpetuating this problems for them. Range livestock ranchers need to talk about the seriousness of this issue with their counterparts locally. Agency workers and published articles can help but these alone have not and cannot get the job done, nor should they be expected to. Rancher/sportsmen committees and other such efforts help create better working relationships to a certain extent but this hasn't significantly diminished the indisputable examples of detrimental grazing created by some of the ranchers themselves.

Obviously, one bad example can be exploited by the radical environmentalists to offset many examples of good, long-term management. The goal cannot be total compliance or change, but should be to provide readily apparent evidence to the public that ranchers and the range livestock industry itself is trying hard to diminish this problem.

• The continuing lack of understanding of the role of rangeland resource base plays in water quality and production, forage production, economic stability, plant and animal diversity, global climate change, etc. The generally low visibility of rangeland management in many arenas attests to this lack of understanding. A number of things can contribute to this. Among them are lack of a coherent message, failure to properly identify and describe our customers, using messages inappropriate to the receiving audience, and insufficient energy directed to gaining understanding.

Group 3: PUBLIC POLICY IMPACTS ON GRAZING LANDS

• Public land and conservation reserve policy and domestic livestock grazing management, grazing fees and costs, the livestock permittee contribution and investment in management of grazing lands.
  
  
• Will grazing lands increase or decrease in acreage in the post- conservation reserve program period?
  
  
• How do/can federal agricultural programs affect size, quality of land in grazing use?
  
  
• Maintenance of CRP land in forage.
  
  
• The potential for a continuing decrease in private grazing landowner's decision space. Public concerns are continuing to grow over water quality, pesticide use, riparian conditions, threatened and endangered species, and similar issues. Awareness is increasing that those concerns can't effectively be dealt with by looking at only one sector of land management, which in the case of rangelands has often been the public sector. Inter-related use of private and other land will receive more attention as being both part of the problem and the solution.
  
  
• National and regional shifts in the forage supply base and its implications to land use patterns and related resource uses. Shifts in livestock production are expected to occur due to:
  1. reversion of crop lands to pasture and range and
  2. the ability to graze conservation reserve lands.
  
  
  
• Pressure to reduce or eliminate livestock grazing from public lands. This is a growing pressure primarily on lands managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. This has implications not only for the use and management of the public lands, but has effects on the contribution of inter-related private lands to environmental and economic health. In addition, it influences the perception of the use of grazing lands in general.
  
  
• Grazing land users will continue to be impacted by agriculture and natural resource policies which will continue to impact the use made of grazing resources.
  
  
• The influence of government programs on grazing lands -- provide information for legislators and others regarding the impact of government programs on grazing lands and their owner/operators.
  
  
• Future of CRP grasslands.

Group 4: ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY OF GRAZING LANDS

• LISA and Grazing Land Management.
  
  
• Sustainability of grazing lands -- will they be abandoned in the future due to negative economics and social pressures? What is needed for sustainability? Research?
  
  
• How to profitably use western grazing/range lands in the face of static or declining demands for beef by U.S. consumers.
  
  
• Vegetation management -- The subject might include fire, plant establishment, plant adaptation, etc. The current economics of range are such that vegetation management is often marginal economically yet important for wildlife, domestic animals, water, etc.
  
  
• Water resources of rangelands -- In many locations, the greatest economic value for rangelands may be for development of water for offsite uses.
  
  
• Mechanical practices for rangelands -- Development of mechanical treatments for moisture management, seedling establishment, and environmental control on rangelands are important to improve the range resources.
  
  
• Profitability of private grazing lands.
  
  
• Multiple use of grazing land to improve income.
  
  
• Changes in the ownership structure which manages grazing lands. There appears to be a shift in two directions in the ownership and management of grazing lands. On one hand is the increasing fragmentation of ownership resulting in more part-time operators and smaller operations with different goals than the family farmer. On the other hand is a consolidation of holdings with increased size of operations and more corporate management. One of the losers is the traditional family operator who's caught in the middle. This has a number of potential implications for the future use, productivity, and health of grazing lands.
  
  
• Comparative economics of grazing lands. The CRP program and the drying of certain aquifers suggest we need to take a long look at the comparative advantages of grazing land vs. other land-use interests. This would help direct public policy and aid in effective research and extension planning.
  
  
• Grazing land users are affected by increasing urban populations and rural areas becoming semi-urban, which shifts demands for resources such as water and public services, and results in high-risk situations from natural causes (fire, floods, avalanches) and degradation and/or loss of grazing lands.

ROLE OF GRAZING LANDS -- THE FEDERAL AGENDA

• Application of management technology and technology development to achieve goals for grazing land ecosystems and environmental.
  
  
• Grazing influence on water quality, erosion, and other environmental factors especially riparian habitats.
  
  
• Domestic grazing interaction with plant diversity, wildlife, and recreational users.
  
  
• Manipulation of ecosystem by domestic livestock.
  
  
• Healthful role of red meat (beef) in human diets.
  
  
• With increasing numbers of species being designated "endangered" or "threatened," and with increasing pressure for maintenance or enhancement of "biological diversity," how can livestock grazing remain compatible with these phenomena and remain viable.
  
  
• Grazing lands as a natural resource. Too often the public looks at land, air, water, animals, and people as the natural resources, whereas grazing lands are also a critical resource. In addition to the myriad of niches for genetic diversity, these lands interact with soil, air, water, animals, and humans to add to our national well being. A re-examination may be worthwhile.
  
  
• Role of grazing lands in international competitiveness. The U.S. is blessed with abundant land, much of which is dedicated to grazing livestock and other uses. How do these activities and land uses confer economic advantages internationally? How can the U.S. use these lands more acceptably in meeting international competition? How does use as grassland interfere with other uses?
  
  
• The role of the grazing lands in producing meat products that meet the desires of a large group of our citizens who feel that "lean and chemically free" is the wave of the future.
  
  
• What is the future role of the western grazing lands (rangelands)? There is no question that change is upon us. What can the traditional users plan for meat production, or will it be a by-product of a management tool?
  
  
• LISA or, at least, sustainable agriculture. Certainly grazing and/or range management is nearly one and the same. I, personally, hope it's just not another jazzy idea with a catchy title. It's too important of a concept to be given that treatment.

GLF ROLE

• Financial support for organizations concerned with the proper management of our grazing lands.
  
  
• The GLF should serve as a catalyst among agencies and organizations to see that proper policy is developed and appropriate research and education programs are developed. The GLF should serve as a communications clearing house and as a catalyst among various groups. Their role as a lobbyist is very important because the GLF has the potential to draw many organizations together in a common cause. I have often thought that those of us involved in grazing lands could have been much more powerful over the years if efforts would have been coordinated and communicated to each other and to policy makers.
  
  
• The long-term role of GLF should be to continue to develop materials for general information and provide a mechanism for communication among disciplines and societies. Of concern, however, is how the purpose interacts with or duplicates CAST in some areas. My perspective is that CAST will stay in the information-white paper format, and with some industry connections will likely not concentrate very much on grasslands. (Perhaps if an annual meeting is too frequent the group should meet less frequently, e.g, every other year.)
  
  
• GLF can still provide a mechanism to exchange ideas and develop commonality among groups with diverse interests. It is my perspective that the image of GLF has become grazing lands for livestock instead of grazing lands for multiple uses and values. I feel that GLF must provide an open, unbiased forum for groups to reach compromise on a complex set of issues.
  
  
• There is a perception on the part of some that livestock should not graze on the federally owned ranges. GLF might address the topics of
  1. how livestock grazing might be used to a management tool which contributes to the viability of rangelands;
  2. how to implement grazing programs which result in such viability; and
  3. how to communicate the benefits of livestock grazing to "significant others" who could influence the future direction of grazing on federal lands.
  
  
  
• A major role that GLF might play in any of the above would be to achieve consensus among those listed on your mailing list because of their diverse perspectives.
  
  
• I'm not sure what role the Grazing Lands Forum should play in any of the foregoing issues. Perhaps in its present form it doesn't have any significant role. If any of these issues are of importance to anyone else at the meeting in Harpers Ferry, perhaps at that time, we can pursue the most effective mechanism to deal with them.
  
  
• I must question the basic objective of GLF. Originally it was "designed" to get the Feds to talk with the livestock industry -- a communication device to let the industry know what the Feds were "up to." It may have been successful at the beginning but since my involvement the past two years, the livestock industry has not been involved or only minimally so and reluctant at that. Then we tried to get the "conservationist" to talk and they were weak in showing up. An we ended up, as so often the case, just talking to ourselves. Last year we tried to influence legislation on the CRP but can we identify any legislative action as a result? With all the organizations involved, i.e., SCD, SRM, SWCS, Extension, etc., it is difficult to find a role for GLF that isn't already being filled. Even the coordination of most of these organizations is being provided for by the Natural Resources Council of America.
  
  
• GLF should support keeping marginal CRP lands in grass, and the development of economic and environmentally acceptable measures for the control of weeds and brush on grasslands.

APPENDIX II: Officers and Contributors To the Fourth Forum - 1989 GLF Officers

PLANNING COMMITTEE

FACILITATORS

APPENDIX III: Participants In the Fourth Grazing Lands Forum

THE GRAZING LANDS FORUM APPLICATION

Individual Sustaining Membership

Individual membership in the Grazing Lands Forum entitles you to participate in the annual Forum and other meetings scheduled throughout the year. Individual members will receive copies of the Forum Executive Summary and Full Report, as well as the "Gra- zing Lands Forum Newsletter" published 3 times a year. Annual dues for individual sustaining membership are $12.

Name:                                                            

Street Address:                                                  

City:                                              State:        

Zip Code:             Telephone Number Work:  (    )             

                                       Home:  (    )             

Organizational Affiliation(s):
                                                                  
                                                                  
                                                                  
                                                               
Interest In Grazing Lands:                                        
                                                                  
                                                                  
                                                                  
                                                                  
                                                           

Return to:   Fee Busby, Executive Secretary
          c/o Winrock International
          Route 3
          Morrilton, AR 72110-9537
          (501)-727-5435

Organizations desiring to become Grazing Lands Forum members should apply to the Executive Secretary or the Officers listed in Appendix II.

Last updated November 27, 1995.