Making the best and most efficient use of natural resources is not a new concept for ranchers, but recently there seems to be an increased focus on outcome-based grazing. The idea is also commonly referred to as “flexible grazing” whereby public land permit holders, depending on range conditions, can adjust the time that they turn animals out to graze.
Niels Hansen, a third-generation rancher from Rawlins, WY, has taken an active role in working cooperatively with the University of Wyoming and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to develop and advocate for cooperative rangeland monitoring.
Talking with WLJ, Hansen said outcome-based grazing is not really a new concept. He explained that it involves guides to help the local agency and the permittees work their way through various issues that they want to have written into their permit. Hansen noted it is simply a procedure to help get through some of the red tape.
He went on to explain that there is a recognition that people have been clamped down on their flexibility of their permits so much and the BLM doesn’t have the authority to be able to make on-the-ground quick decisions to address a resource issue like fuel control, fuel loads on the areas where the fires have grown.
Hansen said that in addition to outcome-based grazing, some ranchers are taking advantage of targeted grazing. He noted that he doesn’t know all of the details about the target grazing program, but it has many similarities to the outcome-based plans.
Writing the flexibility conditions into a grazing permit can be difficult, Hansen said. Permit holders have conditions associated with their allotments that must be upheld in order to maintain a permit in good standing. He went on to say that the BLM is providing guidance to field offices to help them work with ranchers to develop an allotment management plan (AMP) or a ranch management plan (RMP) that serves as a “fundamental equivalent.”
A RMP would be the fundamental equivalent of an AMP, but it would address more properties in one document. “That’s where the flexibility is written in,” Hansen said. “For example, on our permits, our permit is real simple and has a broad range of in-date and out-date as possible. It will show the appropriate number of livestock for the given number of animal unit months within those dates.”
Within the RMP a permit holder and the BLM work together to write in “what ifs.” Those variables include rain that results in abundant grass, creating fuel loads on the pasture. Hansen said the flexibility would allow a permit holder to come in with more animals for a short period of time to address the issue.
The idea of being more flexible also extends to giving local BLM or other agency officials the ability to make local decisions. This decision making is helpful as conditions can differ greatly within a state so a one-size-fits-all approach does not always work.
Hansen said a National Environmental Policy Act analysis will be done on that flexible plan, but it will be written into the RMP. He noted, “If something changes a couple of years down the line and we see that something is not working quite right, or we need to upgrade something, we have new technology, whatever the case may be, that can easily be done in the ranch management plan. But it is really hard to do it in the grazing permit.”
Hansen runs his cattle on seven allotments and uses an RMP instead of an AMP. He said this works well for him and allows for the rotation of cattle through allotments similar to how others rotate cattle through private pastures. He has a cow-calf operation that utilizes land west of the Continental Divide and a yearling operation that grazes on the east side of the Divide.
Much of the discussion around outcome-based grazing also focuses on managing forages, especially cheat grass that can grow quickly into early summer, and if not grazed or otherwise managed can become a volatile fuel in the event of a fire.
A growing issue for Hansen and other public and private landowners is cheat grass. He noted that can be a challenge in some of his larger allotments. For example, he has one pasture that consists of 36 sections, making it extremely difficult to do intensive grazing.
While temporary fencing is an option, it creates additional labor issues, as well as the need for temporary water in the area. Hansen said that working with BLM they are trying to find solutions that may be more cost-effective. “When we get some of these plans pulled together, when we get done, we’ll have the analysis done on temporary water, possibility of long-term water and temporary fences in order to put the pressure on the cheat grass that we need to have to be successful.”
Wildlife habitat
The discussion of grazing in the West often brings up concerns over wildlife habitat, specifically as it pertains to sage-grouse. Hansen said there is habitat for the birds on the land he owns and manages but care is taken to not disturb the birds.
There are times when animals must be moved through a sensitive area, but he said cattle are moved in a low stress situation and “drift” through the area. By that, he explained the ranch crew stays back and gently pushes the animals, so they don’t bunch up in an area but calmly walk through. “They drift along like they are walking to water, and the birds don’t know any different.”
As noted, outcome-based grazing is not a new concept, but getting the flexibility written into grazing permits is the key to making it work. Hansen said although local BLM offices have been instructed on how to interpret the guidelines to write AMPs or RMPs, some are still taking a hardline approach, not always interpreting the guidelines as the Department of Interior instructed.
Hansen told WLJ that, although some ranchers are facing what seems like bureaucracy, “In other areas it is going really well. I’ve talked to people who are implementing these practices and looking at increases in their permits, so it is moving forward.” — Rae Price, WLJ editor
