Journal of
Volume 8 Number 3 May 1955RANGE
MANAGEMENT
Public Land Policy’
ORME LEWIS
Assistant Secretary of the Interior, U. X. Department of Inte- rior, Washington, D. C.
I
WELCOME this opportunity to get together with folks whose work ties them closely to the prob- lems of the rangelands of the West for a discussion of public land policy. This is a subject of vital importance, not only to members of the Ameri- can Society of Range Management, but to citizens in all parts of the Nation. Unfortunately, it is a sub- ject not well understood by a large proportion of our people.In fact, my ears are still a little sensitive from an editorial tongue lashing we received recently in good old-fashioned journalistic style from a western newspaper editor. He was indignant because the Government had informed Congress that it couldn’t tell down to the last exact acre exactly how much land it owns. “The fact that the Government doesn’t know how much land it has ” wrote the irate > editor 7 “is an indication that it had no business controlling that much in the first place.”
Well, let’s go back to the first place-back to the beginning of Federal land controls. That takes us back to the time when the Found- ing Fathers established a Republic in which the private ownership of land was recognized as a basic, essential feature. Also recognized at that time was the historic sover- eignty of the Government over all land. Title to undeveloped land not
1 Address presented at the Eighth An- nual Meeting of the American Society of Range Management at San Jose, Cali- fornia, January 26, 1955.
privately owned therefore was vested in the Federal Government.
The Thirteen Original States ceded about 237 million acres of undeveloped land to the Federal Government and thereby estab- lished what has become known as the public domain. It was clearly understood, however, that the Gov- ernment was to act as trustee for this land and it would be transferred as rapidly as possible to private ownership. In fact Congress, even under the Confederation, began making provision for survey and disposal of the land.
Then, as the frontiersmen pushed west, the public domain grew. The Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican and Spanish cessions, the Oregon Compromise and the Gadsden Pur- chase expanded it until finally the original public domain in the 48 States embraced 1,462,000,000 acres. Today, from border to border, there are 1,934,000,000 acres of public and privately owned land and water in the United States.
In the beginning less than one- tenth of this land was privately owned.
Today more than three-fourths of the land in this Nation is pri- vately owned. But the Federal Gov- ernment still retains title to the remainder, or about 456 million acres.
During the first century and a half of the Nation’s growth, a billion acres of public land was disposed of or, as some might say, was given away. Of course, the land was given
97
away in many instances. About 285 million acres was “given away” to homesteaders. But what a price in blood, toil, sweat and tears was exacted for these gifts. One condi- tion was development-develop- ment of the land and the Nation. And many a man failed, and lost his “give away” holdings and his sav- ings as well because the conditions were too hard. And many a man lost his life to savages, disease, or hunger and thirst. But when one brave man fell, or a timid one turned back, another rough and ready frontiersman took his place on the land.
Lands granted-or “given away” -to the States to finance and sup- port schools, institutions, roads and other public undertakings, totaled some 225 million acres.
Veterans have been “given” 61 million acres in the form of military bounties.
The railroads were given grants to 91 million acres of land to push their tracks into the wilderness where no markets or cities existed. The Government then was rich in land and short on dollars. It financed its domestic mutual as- sistance pacts with acres. And as the land moved into private owner- ship and its resources were de- veloped, it poured dollars back into the economic lifestream of the Nation, and the Government pros- pered and grew strong.
98 ORME LEWIS
civilized world, however, required more than heavy thinking. It took vision and daring-and it took guts. Who can really say how the job could have been accomplished better in such a relatively short time?
Men with vision and courage like Theodore Roosevelt and Giff ord Pinchot were on hand at the turn of the century to introduce a new public land policy after the old openhanded policies had served their purpose. They laid the founda- tions for the programs of reclama- tion and conservation of our lands and their resources which the De- partment of the Interior is following today.
Secretary McKay has directed that these time-tested foundations be used as the solid base for a long overdue reappraisal of Federal pub- lic land policy. This reappraisal, now nearing its final stages, has been undertaken through inter- departmental studies. conducted by Assistant Secretary Peterson, of the Department of Agriculture, and a myself, as his counterpart in the
Department of the Interior.
Out of this study, I feel sure, will come policy redeterminations and clarifications which will help all those who have an interest in the public lands, and most particularly, those who work on, and with them, to understand more clearly where this Government stands with re- spect to the original plan of the Founding Fathers to transfer public lands to private or State ownership. As this study got underway, the vital importance of the western range to the economic strength of the whole Nation was firmly es- tablished. There can be no dispute over the need of future generations for large, unbroken grazing areas for their herds and flocks. In fact, the demands of an ever-increasing population for the foods, fibers and other products which the great live- stock industry supplies from the range may pose problems of grave concern for the future,
It is imperative, therefore, that the decisions reached now on public land policy be based, not alone upon a realistic approach to current prob- lems but upon an equally realistic appraisal of future needs as well.
I mentioned earlier that the Federal Government holds title to some 456 million acres of land in the continental United States. Un- doubtedly, one out of every four acres in the entire country is too much land for the Federal Govern- ment to own. Yet, it is equally clear, that much of this land will always remain under Federal administra- tion.
About 179 million of these acres are in national forests, national parks and wildlife reservations and, for the most part, there they will remain. It cannot seriously be pro- posed that any disposal be made of them except in rare instances where it is clear that the purpose originally intended to be served, could better be accomplished by the disposition of some minor portions.
Some 25 million acres are being used by the Department of De- fense. Whether these holdings will shrink or expand in the future de- pends upon circumstances we can- not foresee.
The Bureau of Reclamation has almost 10 million acres set aside in its important program and much of this is slated for eventual transfer to eager homesteaders.
The 57 million acres within Indian reservations are not, strictly speaking, Federal lands.
It seems clear, therefore, that our immediate problem is concerned principally with the 180 million acres of land that comprise what is now called the vacant, unappro- priated, unreserved public domain. This land is administered by the Bureau of Land Management, one of the five bureaus of the Depart- ment under my jurisdiction. I think it is a misnomer to call the lands of the unreserved public domain, va- cant lands. This conjures up a
picture of idle wastelands. As a matter of fact, all but about 10 million of the 180 million acres are producing revenue in one form or another.
The Bureau of Land Management expects its revenues from oil and gas leases, mineral leases, timber sales, grazing fees, land leases and sales and other sources to approx- imate a record-breaking $230,000,- 000 in the current fiscal year.
The Bureau’s budget for the management and development of the public lands this year is some $12 million.
This feat of lifting $218 million of the tax burden from the shoulders of our citizens in a single year is one result of this administration’s prac- tical application of the well-known doctrine of “the greatest good for the greatest number, for the longest time” to its public land policy.
The biggest item of this revenue- some $140 million-came from leas- ing a relatively small portion of the submerged lands of the Outer Con- tinental Shelf. This payment was in the nature of a bonus for the rights to start drilling for oil in the submerged lands. The Government does not guarantee that oil will be found. But if oil is found, the Gov- ernment will collect royalties each year on every barrel produced.
Wise use of the public lands and their resources is sound conserva- tion policy and sound public policy. No resource, completely and ab- solutely locked up, is of any value whatsoever. Our great national parks, for instance, would mean little or nothing if people were not allowed to see them-to walk in them, or even fly over them. We can all agree that such a waste of their grandeur would be tragic.
PUBLIC LAND POLICY 99
them up forever. It would be just as tragic and wasteful if the greedy were allowed to exploit them to the utmost without regard to sound principles of conservation.
But between those two extremes is a solid middle ground which
permits development of our re-
sources and the use and improve- ment of our lands for the benefit of this, and succeeding generations.
Conservation of land resources does not mean that the entire job must be done by the Federal Gov- ernment. Fortunately, conservation is not a Federal monopoly. Private individuals own three times as much land as the Government and, by and large, they do a better conserva- tion job on their own land than the Government does on its holdings. For the past two years the ad- ministration’s land policy has re- mained firmly on the solid ground between the two extremes of all Federal ownership or all private ownership of the remaining public lands. Neither camp has found favor or preference in the Department of the Interior.
Our policy is, and has been, to recognize the existence of the laws which the Congress had adopted and reaffirmed over the years to govern homesteads, desert land entry, small
tract disposal, mining, grazing,
mineral leasing and all the other uses of the land provided for in the statutes.
We have not attempted, nor do we intend to do so, through in- action or other subterfuge to thwart the operation of the laws that have been adopted by the Congress. It is the responsibility of that branch of the Government to make these laws. They have done so. It is the Department’s responsibility to ad- minister them, and in so doing it has been, and will continue to be, our endeavor to carry out the pur- poses set forth in each law without showing partiality toward advo- cates of either Federal or private ownership. In this respect, only
when the laws are changed will we change in our administration of them.
This kind of above-board ad- ministration has done much to over- come the impression gained by many in the past that the Bureau of Land Management was more concerned with finding reasons to deny or delay action on applications filed with it than it was in granting them.
The recent reorganization of the Bureau placed operating authority in State and local offices where there are men familiar with the lands. It has paid dividends in faster service to the public and more efficient operations for the Government. Range, mineral, forestry and land cases are now being handled at the rate of 100,000 a year; before re- organization the rate was 40,000. Another important step toward more efficient operation is the cur- rent program to consolidate the Bureau’s land holdings in compact, more easily managed areas.
Simplification of the land owner- ship pattern is being accomplished through exchanges of lands .with .the States, restoration of public lands from restrictive withdrawals, land sales, private land exchanges and selective disposals where the land is classified for a higher use. A crazy-quilt pattern of Federal land holdings was left behind by the early settlers when they by- passed areas that were unsuited for their purposes. These public lands became relatively small islands in a sea of private holdings. Their isolation from larger areas of public lands made management by the Bureau difficult and uneconomical.
Cadastral surveys of the un- surveyed areas of the public domain have been stepped up to the end that States may take title to the lands which belong to them under the school land grants made by the Government when they were ad- mitted to statehood.
Meanwhile, the pressure of our
increasing population; technological advances in tapping underground sources of water; development of new metals such as uranium; and the constant search for new sources of oil and gas are intensifying the de- mands of the people for more and more of the undeveloped public land.
These pressures for land collide with the requirements of the live- stock industry for more forage to enable it to meet the public demand for more food and fiber.
Under such circumstances, the land classification responsibilities imposed by law upon the Depart- ment grow increasingly difficult and important. The Taylor Grazing Act requires the Bureau of Land Man- agement to classify the lands of the Federal range so that they are put to their highest use.
In fulfilling the requirements of the law, the Department will be ever mindful of the category of high use which an unbroken range serves in the Nation’s economy. Applications for key tracts in such a range will be weighed against the broad detri- mental effects a new classification might have on a wide area. De- terminations will not be based upon a narrow acre by acre evaluation.
These 180 million acres admin- istered by the Bureau of Land Management make a vital contribu- tion to the Nation’s economy. Some 12 million animals producing food and wool graze on them. Grazing privileges are held by almost 30,000 livestock operators.
Right now the range management job is the biggest the Department has ever had. It is bigger because the Federal range has grown.
But grazing is not the only con- tribution these lands make. There are over 80,000 outstanding mineral leases on the range, principally for oil and gas, which must be reconciled with grazing use.
100
a part of their annual forage re- quirements on these lands.
On the range are public domain woodlands protecting watersheds and, under good conservation prac- tices, yielding supplies of timber.
The Department’s program for multiple use of the public lands has proven that the range can make even greater contributions to the national economy than it does now. But contributions must be made to improvement of the range before the extra dividends the land prom- ises can be collected.
In the budget just sent to Con- gress by the President, there is a provision for expenditure of an ad- ditional $1 million in the next fiscal year for soil and moisture conserva- tion on the public lands. This is the start of a 20-year program of soil conservation work. The total job will cost about $250 million. Many times this amount will be recovered which has been wasted through de- pletion of the resources of the range in the past.
The Department’s soil and mois- ture conservation program is a co- operative endeavor. Much of the work will be done on a watershed basis. It is geared for close integra- tion with work authorized under the new Watershed and Flood Preven- tion Act which will be administered by the Department of Agriculture. Already a large number of local groups and individuals dependent upon public lands in their livestock operations have proposed joint public - private development of watershed conservation programs. We welcome this partnership ap-
ORME LEWIS
preach and have provided an at- mosphere in which it can thrive.
The Federal Range Code for Grazing Districts is undergoing re- vision. We expect it to be approved this spring. Its language will be simplified ; procedures will more nearly conform to the Administra- tive Procedures Act; it will provide for more effective administration of grazing under the new organization structure of the Bureau of Land Management; and, it will protect investments made for conservation.
The adjustment of grazing fees recently announced is another step toward more efficient, more realistic management of the range. It will provide additional funds for range improvement and, when firmly ad- justed to the average price the operator is paid for his livestock, will permit more efficient planning and economical operation.
Revision of the old grazing fee system was long overdue. The con- cept of basing fees on costs of range management administration was un- realistic and unfair to the Govern- ment. The new system which relates the cost of forage to the price the producer receives for his livestock is fairer to all concerned. The Bureau of Land Management and the National Advisory Board Council worked together as partners to de- velop the system. The Council squarely faced all the issues involved in this difficult problem and per- formed a real public service in de- veloping, with the Bureau, the recommendations which the Secre- tary has approved.
The condition of the range as a result of the serious drought to
which it has been subjected in the past few years is a matter of serious concern in the Department, as it is to all of you. Reseeding of un- productive areas will be intensified. Present plans call for reseeding 125,000 acres this year, as compared with 100,000 last year. Control measures which have been applied to 350,000 acres since 1952 in our attack on the poisonous range weed halogeton will continue.
The public lands with which we work are not easy lands to master. That’s one reason why they have remained so long in the public do- main. They demand, from those who manage them, an abundance of courage, patience and everlasting hard work. The rewards the lands offer are often bountiful; but the risks are great.
Any policy to meet the challenge of the unreserved public lands must, if it is to be successful, have its foundations deep in the wells of free enterprise on which America thrives.
No matter who holds the titles, it will be the work of individual private citizens on the lands which, in the long run, will develop them to their highest use.
The American Society of Range Management has contributed im- portantly to a clearer understand- ing of the problems involved in management of the public lands. I know that you will continue to make a worthwhile contribution to that effort.
The Department, in meeting the challenge of the last frontier of the public domain, will continue to welcome the cooperation and counsel of those who are close to the land.
CALL FOR PAPERS FOR 1956 ANNUAL MEETING
Range Lands as a National Resource’
RICHARD T. CLARK
Beef Cattle Breeding Research, Animal and Poultry Husbandry Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Denver, Colorado
N accepting this assignment I had in mind several things, but principally two considerations: (1) that I was one of the members who
founded our Society of Range
Management a few years ago, and (2) that my interest in the subject of range lands goes back to the early twenties when I emigrated to
Western Canada and later to
Montana where I was instrumental in getting a series of courses in Range Management established at the College of Agriculture and served as the first Head of the Department of Range Management.
Apparently the Committee had in mind that I should discuss range lands from the livestock producer’s standpoint. At various times in my experience I have been responsible for sizable herds and flocks of livestock using public lands, particu- larly national forest lands, and, therefore, appreciate some of the problems involved.
The Area- Its Importance and Problems
My remarks will be confined for the most part to the area comprising the eleven western states. Harold Guilbert and George Hart of the University of California, in esti- mating the importance of range, pasture and roughages, stated that in California in the early 1940’s at least 90 percent of the total beef tonnage was produced from these three sources of feed nutrients, with less than 10 percent being derived from concentrated feeds. For the United States, from 10 to 15 per-
1 Address given at the Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Society of Range Management at San Jose, California, January 26, 1955.
cent of the beef tonnage was esti- mated by these two Californians as being derived from concentrates.
More recent unpublished U. S. Department of Agriculture data, estimated and compiled by R. D. Jennings for the Western Region, show that 62.88 percent of the feed units utilized by the four roughage- consuming classes of livestock- beef cattle, dairy cattle, sheep and
horses-came from pastures, 27.11
percent from harvested roughages and only 10.01 percent from con- centrates.
A break-down of the feed units from pastures shows that 24.29 per- cent came from cropland pastures, 38.69 percent from open permanent pastures, 26.78 percent from grazing not on farms, 7.21 percent from aftermath and 3.03 percent from woodland.
From these and other estimates that could be cited you can readily visualize our great dependence on grasses and roughages. So far as the future is concerned, the primary problem is feed supply that we can expect to obtain from natural vegetation, pastures and harvested roughages.
One noted authority holds to the view that in the future our range- land resources will become relatively and absolutely, less important na- tionally in our production of grazing animals, and that the cultural de- velopment of grasslands has much more to offer with respect to eco- nomic potentialities.
Unfortunately, when we study subjects of this nature we soon realize the inadequacies of present systems of recording data. For example, Howard B. Sprague be- lieves that no really adequate data
101
are being gathered by the Census Bureau or other government agen- cies on production of forage on pastures.
Walt Dutton has estimated that over half our total land area, or over 950 million acres, can be classified as range land and that these lands furnish forage for one-half of our cattle and three-fourths of our sheep while at the same time pro- viding forage for wildlife.
The principal native grazing lands are in the West and South. Actually, the largest and most significant pasture area in our nation is in the Western and Great Plains regions. In the West it comprises 590 million acres, much of it of low carrying capacity. It has been estimated that if we were to expand cropland in the West to the fullest we would still have 500 million acres of grazing land left.
The inventory of roughage-con- suming livestock which has been made on the lands of the Western Region indicates that total animal units of all livestock have changed very little. Numbers have varied between 15 and 18 million head. At the beginning of the century beef cattle made up approximately 60 percent of the total animal unit population. This figure is now 90 percent. It appears, therefore, that recommendations with respect to management of the grazing resource should apply to beef cattle use.
Looking Ahead
As to the future, let us look at our meat production situation since the whole national welfare is so de- pendent upon meat.
In connection with another study I have projected our beef needs twenty years from now in 1975, and offer the following estimates:
102 RICHARD T. CLARK
Assume 380 lbs. average carcass weight per animal (cattle and calves) slaughtered.
Then 17,640,000,000 + 380 = 46,421,053, the number of carcasses (beef and veal) required.
Actually, during the period 1924- 53, we have slaughtered 36.85 per- cent of our inventory.
46,421,053 i 36.85 X 100 = 125,973,006, the projected
inventory by 1975 Compared with an inventory on January 1, 1954 of 94,677,000, the
projected 1975 inventory would
represent an increase of 31,296,006 or 33.06 percent.
The preceding estimate is based on the highest consumption rate on record. If we revise the estimate and base it on the Eowest consump-
tion rate recorded during the past
ten years, then the following figures would apply :
Assume 200,000,000 people X 61.8 lbs. beef and veal consumption per capita (our 1951 consumption- lowest since 1943-made up of 55.2 lbs. beef and 6.6 lbs. veal) = 12,360,000,000 lbs. required.
Then 12,360,000,000 -+ 380 = 32,526,315, the number of carcasses (beef and veal) required.
32,526,315 + 36.85 X 100 = 88,266,798, the projected
inventory by 1975 Compared with an inventory on January 1, 1954 of 94,677,000, the projected 1975 inventory, based on the lowest consumption rate of the past 10 years, would represent a decrease of 6,410,202 or 6.77 per- cent.
If we assume the highest estimate, then we have twenty years in which to reach it. But if the human popu- lation goes to 200,000,000 by 1970, as some experts predict, we will have only fifteen years. And remember, this population pressure is going to consist of an increasing proportion of youngsters who consume rela- tively large amounts of meat.
And what measures will we have to Can we increase our beef supply by 33 percent? Can we do it in time?
take so the forage supplies will be- come available when we need them? Clearly, some planning will have to take place. In many respects it becomes a challenge to our in- genuity and involves the application of research.
Have we accomplished significant increases in production of beef in recent history? The Western States
Experiment Stations (including
Texas) in cooperation with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the U. S. Department of Agricul- ture have reported in Utah Bulletin No. 352 an average increase of 17 percent per breeding unit of cattle between the periods 1924-28 and 1946-50.
It should be remembered that much of this increase was the result of improved management largely in
two fields-nutrition and disease
control, and I am including in nutrition sound range and pasture management.
Most of the permanent improve- ments that are possible as the result of sound selection practices applied to breeding stock still lie ahead. It is entirely feasible that we can yet accomplish material improvement in production if we are successful in getting current and new animal and plant research applied.
With respect to permanent im- provements resulting from the ex- panded use of improved breeding stock, it is clear that we can in- crease current meat production by this method. To keep pace with population it will tax our range and forage resources if the consumption rate per capita for beef and veal remains high enough to demand a 33 percent increase in all-cattle inventory.
populations.
There is no denying the fact that greater forage supplies will be needed and we need to start on that immediately. But if we started a mass movement for improved meat animals now we might be just one step ahead of the need when it arises for it takes time to shift animal
We have demonstrated that we can get 3-pounds-per-day gaining steers instead of the 2-pounds-per- day variety that we have been content with for too long a period of time. And, if we could quickly over- come the almost ingrained prejudice against breeding for large, rapid gaining animals, we could add very materially to our available meat sup- plies without taxing our feed re- sources. It has been and is being done with some classes of animals, but not with beef cattle to any- thing like the degree that it may reach in the distant future.
And, if we had a sound animal- introduction program, we would reap a rich reward in time for there are many types of animals or breeds that we have never tried to use. In this respect we have been extremely conservative, perhaps en- tirely unrealistic. We are beginning to appreciate some of the signifi- cance of animal adaptation.
Therefore, we should keep clearly in mind these facts:
1. Future increases in meat have to come from increased efficiency in our meat production systems. In this connection, I would refer you to an excellent review article by L. A. Maynard of Cornell that appeared
in the July 1954 issue of
SCIENCE
entitled, “Animal Species That Feed Mankind.”
2. We have no new lands to which we can move. Therefore, we are dependent upon improved supplies and quality of forages on the same grazing and pasture lands. Some of the experimental work that has been reported in this field is nothing short of spectacular.
RANCHER’S VIEWPOINT OF SHRUB CONTROL 103
any possibility in the immediate that these resources will be passed The day is at hand when the im-
future that we can obtain supplies on to future generations with in- portance of forage will become so
from other sources. creased value. And that, in essence, great to us that as a nation we will
5. There is some evidence and we will “keep the younger genera- initiate appropriate steps not only
hope that producers are becoming tion in view and leave them no to husband our forage resources but
more specialized and that they will tumbled house,” and we will recog- increase them, for the future prog-
develop and manage range and nize that the range resource is re- ress of our nation will be contingent
pasture resources in such a manner newable but only if is well managed. upon such action.
A Southwestern Rancher’s Viewpoint
of Shrub Control’
FRANK S. BOICE
Empire Ranch, Sonoita, Arizona
I
AM greatly honored to be asked to address this eighth annual meeting of the American Society of Range Management and I am very happy indeed over the subject sug- gested. At home I am considered somewhat of a nut on the subject of shrub control and I don’t object in the least. On the contrary I wish there were many, many more people, both stockmen and tech- nicians, who understand the desper- ate urgency of the problem and were, therefore, considered just a little bit cracked on the subject. The problem of controlling the spread of brush exists, in one form or another and in varying degrees of development, wherever livestock are grazed and, so far as I know, there is no method of control in use anywhere that is effective enough, inexpensive enough or fast enough to adequately meet the issue.It is for this reason that I am glad to talk to this group, made up as it is of both stockmen and technicians. For it seems to me that we, as members of a voluntary society dedicated to the develop- ment and improvement of range
1 Paper presented at the Eighth An.nual Meeting, American Society of Range Management in San Jose. Cm.lifwwIa, January 25-28, 1955.
management, must spearhead the drive that needs to be made to find the answers. As stockmen working alone we are almost helpless. To be sure, we can swing a maddock without technical advice, but the maddock is certainly not a com- plete answer. And the researcher working alone is, I fear, too apt to be complacent, too apt to be led into interesting but unproductive channels, too apt to forget the economic and the practical aspects of the problem. But working to- gether, consulting back and forth, arguing the wisdom of different lines of research; in short, working together as a team, the technician and the stockman can find the answers before it is too late. This American Society of Range Manage- ment is that kind of team and I am glad to be a member.
For a little over 25 years the Empire Ranch in southern Arizona has been my home. The ranch is in a perennial grass country at an eleva- tion of 4500 feet. It is a beautiful country with rolling hills covered
with grass and completely sur-
rounded by mountains; it is also a very productive country. There is only one serious menace to its continued beauty and productivity. It is being invaded by mesquite.
The mesquite has come up the valleys from the desert to the north, it has followed up the smaller valleys and is spreading out over the ridges in every direction. This invasion started slowly about 75 years ago but as it developed it has gained momentum until now, any- one with any knowledge of grazing lands can see both the effect of the invasion and its menace. Perennial grasses are being replaced by weeds, annual grasses and brush of low forage value, erosion is being ac- celerated and the productivity of the area is going down.
On the Empire Ranch we plan to do some mesquite control work each year; and in following this plan it was decided in 1954 to clear a pasture of about 300 acres which was close to headquarters. About six years ago this pasture had been fenced out of a larger pasture con- taining plenty of mature seed- bearing mesquite trees. A casual look at this little pasture revealed a few scattered mesquites showing above the grass on the ridges with a thicker stand of older trees in the draws. This did not look like a very big clearing job but much to our surprise we grubbed out or treated with diesel oil approximately 7,000
mesquite plants-over 20 plants to
RANCHER’S VIEWPOINT OF SHRUB CONTROL 103
any possibility in the immediate that these resources will be passed The day is at hand when the im-
future that we can obtain supplies on to future generations with in- portance of forage will become so
from other sources. creased value. And that, in essence, great to us that as a nation we will
5. There is some evidence and we will “keep the younger genera- initiate appropriate steps not only
hope that producers are becoming tion in view and leave them no to husband our forage resources but
more specialized and that they will tumbled house,” and we will recog- increase them, for the future prog-
develop and manage range and nize that the range resource is re- ress of our nation will be contingent
pasture resources in such a manner newable but only if is well managed. upon such action.
A Southwestern Rancher’s Viewpoint
of Shrub Control’
FRANK S. BOICE
Empire Ranch, Sonoita, Arizona
I
AM greatly honored to be asked to address this eighth annual meeting of the American Society of Range Management and I am very happy indeed over the subject sug- gested. At home I am considered somewhat of a nut on the subject of shrub control and I don’t object in the least. On the contrary I wish there were many, many more people, both stockmen and tech- nicians, who understand the desper- ate urgency of the problem and were, therefore, considered just a little bit cracked on the subject. The problem of controlling the spread of brush exists, in one form or another and in varying degrees of development, wherever livestock are grazed and, so far as I know, there is no method of control in use anywhere that is effective enough, inexpensive enough or fast enough to adequately meet the issue.It is for this reason that I am glad to talk to this group, made up as it is of both stockmen and technicians. For it seems to me that we, as members of a voluntary society dedicated to the develop- ment and improvement of range
1 Paper presented at the Eighth An.nual Meeting, American Society of Range Management in San Jose. Cm.lifwwIa, January 25-28, 1955.
management, must spearhead the drive that needs to be made to find the answers. As stockmen working alone we are almost helpless. To be sure, we can swing a maddock without technical advice, but the maddock is certainly not a com- plete answer. And the researcher working alone is, I fear, too apt to be complacent, too apt to be led into interesting but unproductive channels, too apt to forget the economic and the practical aspects of the problem. But working to- gether, consulting back and forth, arguing the wisdom of different lines of research; in short, working together as a team, the technician and the stockman can find the answers before it is too late. This American Society of Range Manage- ment is that kind of team and I am glad to be a member.
For a little over 25 years the Empire Ranch in southern Arizona has been my home. The ranch is in a perennial grass country at an eleva- tion of 4500 feet. It is a beautiful country with rolling hills covered
with grass and completely sur-
rounded by mountains; it is also a very productive country. There is only one serious menace to its continued beauty and productivity. It is being invaded by mesquite.
The mesquite has come up the valleys from the desert to the north, it has followed up the smaller valleys and is spreading out over the ridges in every direction. This invasion started slowly about 75 years ago but as it developed it has gained momentum until now, any- one with any knowledge of grazing lands can see both the effect of the invasion and its menace. Perennial grasses are being replaced by weeds, annual grasses and brush of low forage value, erosion is being ac- celerated and the productivity of the area is going down.
On the Empire Ranch we plan to do some mesquite control work each year; and in following this plan it was decided in 1954 to clear a pasture of about 300 acres which was close to headquarters. About six years ago this pasture had been fenced out of a larger pasture con- taining plenty of mature seed- bearing mesquite trees. A casual look at this little pasture revealed a few scattered mesquites showing above the grass on the ridges with a thicker stand of older trees in the draws. This did not look like a very big clearing job but much to our surprise we grubbed out or treated with diesel oil approximately 7,000
mesquite plants-over 20 plants to
104 FRANK S. BOICE
handling of cattle difficult and the carrying capacity down, away down. This pasture would not have been destroyed in 25 years or even, per- haps, in 50 years but as surely as night follows day it would ulti- mately have been destroyed.
The condition which exists on and around the Empire Ranch is dupli- cated in many, many areas of the Southwest. Millions of acres of good grazing land are gradually being
taken over by mesquite. But
mesquite is by no means the only shrub which causes concern. Only a few hundred miles to the north we find juniper doing the same things to our grazing lands that mesquite is doing in my neighborhood. It is spreading rapidly into clean areas and as the stands of juniper become denser the perenial grasses disappear and serious erosion takes over. If I were ranching in a juniper country I would be just as concerned about the future as I am now with my mesquite.
Wherever I have gone in the western part of this country I have found a shrub invasion problem. Species of shrubs differ, rapidity of spread and degrees of infestation differ but the end result, lacking effective control methods, is always the same. Shrub control on our grazing lands is a staggering problem for all of us; and for those engaged in research it is a challenge and an opportunity.
I wish it were possible to put a value on the loss that has already taken place because of the en- croachment of brush on our grazing lands. Longtime records of the Forest Service indicate a sharp
decrease in permitted numbers
where the invasion of brush is a factor and long established ranches with a well-advanced brush problem show the same downward trend in carrying capacity. But these records are not very helpful. More con- servative use of the range has been the order of the day for many years now and it is impossible to deter- mine what part of the reduction is
due to the inroads of brush and what is due to the more conservative estimate of the true grazing capac- ity.
We do, however, have a startling indication, of the economic im- portance of brush control in the records of the Salt River Valley Waterusers’ Association in Phoenix, Arizona. Records of run-off from the Roosevelt watershed go back to 1889 and of rainfall over the water- shed to 1900. Annual rainfall, averaged by decades, has been con- sistently above twenty inches. In the decade 1900-1909, 11.4 % of the rainfall on the watershed appeared as run-off in the streams; in the decade 1940-1949, this percentage had dropped to 8.4. That is an average annual decrease in run-off over a fifty-year period of 375,000 acre feet based on 20-inch rainfall. With agricultural land under the project valued at above $800 per acre it isn’t hard to estimate the very great economic loss that has resulted. An examination of the watershed reveals what has hap- pened. Of the 7.5 million acres above the dams of the project, 2.5 million acres are infested with juniper; and in addition there are large areas growing scrub oak, mansanita, pinon and jack pine. It hasn’t always been that way. Those who have long been familiar with the watershed agree that the big in- crease in brush has come within the memory of man. There seems to be no other explanation of the decrease in run-off from this watershed except that in the past the water went down the streams and now it is used up in the production of un- palatable brush.
Many ranchers are struggling with shrub control but it is dis- heartening work; able to work at it, willing to work at it but always knowing full well while working that with the methods of control at hand we can’t win the struggle. As I look back it seems to me that too much time and effort has been lost trying to find out why this invasion of our
grazing lands by brush is taking place; trying, perhaps, to find a cul- prit at whom we can point a finger and say : You are responsible ! For me it is sufficient to say that the invasion of our grazing lands by brush began with use of the land for grazing and that abuse of the land accelerated the process but was not the primary cause. But having ac- cepted this statement as reasonable or having found a culprit at whom we can point a finger, the hard fact remains that we must either find economically feasible methods of controlling brush or reconcile our- selves to the loss of vast areas of valuable grazing land.
The Place of Range Livestock in the
Missouri Ozarks
S.
CLARK MARTINRange Conservationist, Northern Ozark Branch, Central States Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U. S. Dept. qf Agri- culture, Columbia, Missouri
T
HE Ozark region of Missouri lies near the center of the United States, separating North from South and East from West. It is a mixture of grassland and forest, mountains and plain, corn and cotton. In this area of mixed crops, conditions and cultures, the agricultural methods and standards of adjacent regions have only limited application. How well is such an area suited for range livestock pro- duction?Climate
Because of its inland location the weather of the Ozark region is changeable. However, extremes of heat and cold, drought and moisture, are not so marked as farther north or west. The average January tem- perature is about 34”F., the average July temperature 76”F., and the average frost-free period 180 days. Range forage is rarely covered with snow or ice for more than 2 or 3 days at a time, and cool-season grasses usually remain green all winter. Average annual percipita- tion ranges from 40 to 50 inches. Average warm-season precipitation (April through September) ranges from 24 to 30 inches. Within the region, precipitation is lightest in the northwest and heaviest in the south- east (U.S.D.A., 1941). In all parts of the region rainfall usually is adequate for growing trees, pasture,’ tilled crops or native range forage. One disadvantage of Ozark forest
l “Pasture” here refers to forage es-
tablished and maintained with the aid of tilbge, mowing and fertilizers using species that have such exacting moisture or fertility requirements that they will not compete successfully with the native vege- tation under range condi tion,s
.
range for nearby farmers is its general climatic uniformity. There are no consistent local differences in climate comparable to those caused by differences in elevation in mountainous areas of the West. So range forage and pasture forage are usually green, or dry, at the same time. However, observations in the drought years of 1952 and 1953 indicate that accumulated range herbage is valuable when other forage is scarce. If supplemented with protein concentrates, such herbage provides economical rough- age for cattle.
Vegetation
More than 60 percent of the Ozark area is in forest-chiefly second-growth stands of oak and other hardwoods (King et al., 1949). Some shortleaf pine (Pinus echi- nata) occurs, mainly in the eastern Ozark counties (Liming, 1946). Forests occupy all land except that cleared for other uses and where the soil is too thin for trees to grow.
Many of the common Ozark range grasses are prairie species. These in- clude little bluestem (Andropogon
scoparius) , big bluestem (Andro-
pogon gerardi), broomsedge (Andro-
pogon virginicus) , side-oats grama
(Boutelouu curtipendulu), switch-
grass (Punicum virgutum) , Indian grass (Sorghustrum nutuns) , purple-
top (Tridens JEuvus) and prairie
dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) . Several of these species can be found in almost any forest opening, but little bluestem is by far the most common. In addition to little bluestem other grasses and grass- like plants such as wild oat-grass
(Danthonia spicuta) , several species
105
of panic grass (Punicum spp.), and sedges (Curex spp.) are commonly found in wooded areas.
Most of the important herbaceous non-grasses are either legumes or composites (Martin et aZ., 1955). Native lespedezas (Lespedexu spp.) and tick clovers (Desmodium spp.) are among the most common Ozark legumes. They are grazed in the late summer and early fall, especially in times of drought. Asters (Aster spp.), goldenrods (Solidago spp.), brown-eyed Susan (Rudbeckiu spp .) , and pussytoes (Antennuriu spp.), are common composites.
Soils and Topography Most Ozark soils are low in plant nutrients but respond well to fer- tilizers (U.S.D.A., 1938). Recent experience indicates that almost any site that is not too steep or rocky to till can be made to grow forage. About half of the land in the Ozark region is considered non- arable (Krusekopf, 1954) ; range grazing and forestry usually are confined to this land. Range and forest interests differ as to whether such non-arable land should be growing grass or trees. The land will support either, except where the soil is too thin to grow trees. How- ever, some slopes are too steep for practical cattle grazing and most of the uncleared land has too many trees and sprouts to produce much grass.
How the Range Is Used The average Ozark farmer has about half as much cultivated land as does the Missouri corn-belt farmer. He owns or leases about
150 acres of which 90 acres are cleared and 60 acres are in forest.
In January, 1950 there were 900,000 cattle and 600,000 hogs on 75,000 farms in the 17-million-acre Missouri Ozark Region (see Fig. 2).
100 R. CLARK M4ItTl~
and livestock produrts (I-.S.D.C., 1950). Part of this livestock invome is derived from range livestock operations.
Cattle, horses, mules, sheep, goats and hogs are all range animals in the Ozarks. In rpccnt years dairy- ing has increased, especially around the edges of the Ozarks. However, successful dairging depends on pas- ture and an abundance of other feed and cannot logically bc vlassed as a rangy enterprise. Sheep are raised mainly on fewed range or pa&we. Goats arc kept chiefly bc- cause their browsing helps clear the land of brush and sprouts. Beef cattle and hogs are thr important income-producing animals.
Many early Ozark farmers “grew” into the heef rattle business via the family milk cow. Mthough many Ozark range rattle are of mixed brerding, thr “yellow hammer” cow is being gradually replarcd by the Hereford, Angus or Shorthorn. The Hereford is the most, popular brrrd, and man,v herds EWP essentially pure- breds. Many others hare beef-type body conformation but still show t,hcir dairy ancestry.
Hogs
In the heavily wooded eastern Ozarks, rauge hogs outnumber range cattle (U.S.D.C., 1950). Sinre hogs feed mostly on acorns, roots and nuts r&her t,han on grass, the,y are hetter suited than cattle for grass- poor forest range. For the small farmer of this area, a so\\- is a better investment than a cow. Usually a range sow will pay for herself in about a year. On similar range th? cov will not pay for hcrsAf in less than 2 or 3 years. The hog is also a b&w animal for home use because the carcass is smaller and rasicr to preserve by home methods.
Despite the apparent eronomic advanbages of hogs over catt,le, hogs are not well adapted for range operat,ions. On open range that is also used for catt,le grazing or timber prodwtion, hogs are objectionable because they root out forage plants and seedling t)rres. In a closed-range area the inwme from range hogs prohably does not justify the cost of a hog-proof fence.
Range Management
Range managrment rweivcs lit,tlr attention in the Ozarks. The h&w managrd rangrs are on t,hr national
for&s where grazing is confined to an Smonth season (May t,hrough Dwrmbcr) and where there is some control of numbers. A few privat,e ranges may he managed even bcttpr thao the national forests hut, many are very poorly managed. The poor& management is on open range where there is no cont,rol over numbers and rlasses of animals, or season of use. In t,he open-range cowtics eattIp and hogs may graze t,hz+ range t,he year around. Live- stock is turned out when other feed is scar~~e or at any other time that SPP~S convenient, or profit,able for the st~ockomner.
Grazing-Forestry Relationships Most Ozark ranges are all or partjly forested. Nevertheless, prac- tically all Ozark sites will grow dense stands of grass if the forest stand is removed or kept open. Without control of moody plants, most, forests cventuslly brcomc so dense that forage production is negligible. The only Ozark sites that stay in grass without persistent sprout and brush control are those where the soil is too thin and drv to grow common Ozark hardwoods. But, even the thirr-soiled areas are being invaded by east,ern redcedar (duniperus airginiana), winged elm (CZ??WS alata) and assoriated drought-tolerant trees (Fig. 1).
Forage and timber are the x&ml crops on these ranges but the per- acrr incomes from these produet,s arc so low and the average Ozark farmer controls so little land that he cannot make a good living from range and forest operations. The need for higher incomes is so great that most &es not t,oo steep or rocky for crdt,ivation have been cleared at one time or another. The persistent need to conwrt forest and range land to more intensive, higher-paying uses seems likely to confine forestry and range-livestock production in the future to arias whew tillsge is impractical.
RANGE LIVESTOCK IN MISSOURI OZARKS 107
forested, non-arable land in the Ozarks are also used for range. Forage production is related in- versely to the density of the forest stand (Read, 1951). Since good crops of timber and forage cannot normally be grown together, range and forest interests frequently differ over land-management practices. Those who want to grow trees insist that fire be kept out of the woods and that grazing be restricted so the forests can reproduce themselves. Those who need grass say that tree reproduction must be kept down in order to maintain a stand of forage.
Any Ozark farmer has the right to burn or goat his own land. But too often his fires and livestock escape onto land that is not his. The public land and much of the privately-owned land in the Ozarks is held by people who are interested in growing trees. Most absentee land owners in the open range counties cannot expect to harvest a crop of timber because the local people frequently burn the open range to maintain forage produc- tion. This grazing-forestry conflict is largely a conflict between the farmer who makes his day-to-day living from the land and the private investor, public forester or corpora- tion who can better afford to wait for long-time gains.
Overcutting, burning and over- grazing have left many Ozark forests in such poor condition that there is no merchantable timber left to provide immediate income. On both open and closed range, the Ozark farmer favors livestock over timber because he can raise a calf or a shoat quicker than he can grow a sawlog.
Open Range
Under the Missouri Stock Law, local elections decide whether the range in a given township or county shall be open, closed or open only to certain classes of livestock. Some townships are closed to sheep, goats and hogs but are open for cattle and
MISSOURI
RANGE
:D RANGE
FIGURE 2. Open and closed range in the Missouri Ozark region as of August, 1951.
horses. The number of open-range townships in the Ozarks decreased from 143 in 1935 to 96 in 1951. Most of the open range remaining is in the heavily wooded eastern Ozark counties (Fig. 2). The open range is often overgrazed, repeat- edly burned and rarely improved. Lack of control on open range is an obstacle to land management for the forester and non-resident land- owner.
Why does open range still exist where more than 90 percent of the land is privately owned? One reason may be that much of the private land is held by absentee owners and corporations with comparatively few votes in local elections. Only 31 percent of the land in Reynolds County and 25 percent of that in Carter County is held by resident farmers (U.S.D.C., 1950). Eco- nomically, it is to the advantage of these farmers to vote for free and unrestricted use of an area 2 or 3 times as large as their own holdings. The farmers in such counties prob- ably hold the majority vote in town- ship elections.
Range hogs are another considera- tion in the almost solid block of
open range in the eastern Ozark counties. On this heavily wooded, grass-poor range, hogs outnumber cattle. The farmer can make a few dollars by running his hogs on open range. If the range is voted closed, he will have to confine his hogs to land that he is permitted and can afford to fence. Many absentee owners would not be willing to have their land fenced for range. And even if they were, a hog-proof fence might cost more than exclusive use of such range would be worth. Under existing conditions open range ap- pears to be a better bet than closed range for the range-hog grower.
Burning
Burning-to kill sprouts and seedlings, to make the grass “green up” early, or to kill ticks, snakes or other pests-is a common Ozark range practice. At present, the greatest point of controversy be- tween grazing and forestry is over the use of fire.
108 S. CLARK MARTIS
trees will not get big, the big trees may be riddled by insects and diseases that enter through fire scars, the soil will erode, the streams will be muddy and the soil that is left vi11 dry out faster after each rain because there is no litter to protect it. Repeated burning changes a hardrood forest from a dense, all- age stand t,o a two-story staod com- posed of widely spaced, old, de- fective trees and a thicket of sprouts and seedlings that have grovn up since the last burn. Most Ozark hardwoods sprout from the base if the top is removed or killed by fire, but unless burning is prevented these sprouts rarely become big, sound trees.
Ozark cattlemen burn the range to kill back young trees, remove the dense leaf cover, help maintain herbage yields, make the forage more palatable and more nutritious, and make the grass “green up” earlier in the spring. Although the forester condemns fire as being detrimental to the voods, the cattle- man’s beliefs about, t,hc effects of burning on forage yield and quality are not to be dismissed lightly.
Sumerous observations show that the densities and yields of herbace- ous plants are related inversely to the density of the forest stand and that a heavy leaf litt,er is detri-
mental to grass (Read, 1951;
Gaines et al., 1954; Wahlrnberg et al., 1939). Likewise the higher palatability of forage on burned range is indicated by t,he tendency for cattle to concentrate on bumed-
over range areas (Fig. 3). Some chemical analyses also show that the nutritive value of grass “u a burned-over area is higher than that of the same species on un- burned range (Sh,=pherd, 19.j3; Wahlenberg et al., 1939).
The stockmm’s belief that burned range “greens up” earlier is more controversial. l3uming removes any acoumulst~ion of dead material so that, the green shoots are visible as soon as they emerge from the burned stubble. Xem grass shoots on un- burned range must grow up through several inches of old “rough” before they can be seen and are available to livestock. So the early “green up” on burned range may be more apparent than real.
The success of a burn depends somewhat on the sizes of the trees because large trees do not sprout as readily as do small ones (Clark and Liming, 1953). If the stand is com- posed mostly of large trees, the area may remain “pen for sevcrsl years. Sprouts from small trees, if abundant,, will quickly shade out any new forage.
The results of burning arc also complicated by overgrazing. The effects of fire and overgrazing to- gether arc often sevem enough to almost eliminatje the perennial for- age species. While fire alone tends to hold bark the trees and en- courage grass, fire and overgrazing together hold back both t>reps and grass. Frequent burning mill rdard sprout growth, but it will not in- sure a lush stand of grass. ~ore
cffert,ive, less dest,ructive m&hods of controlling woody plants are needed.
Goating, as usually practiced in the Ozarks, is not an economical way to eliminate sprouts. To pre- pare an area for goating, all top growth must be killed or removed by some combination of logging, girdling, chopping and burning, and thn wea must be enclosed by a goat-proof fence. Then it must be stocked with about three goats per acre for about three years. Success-
ful goat& requires very heavy
stocking because goats will not eat all of the sprouts until after the grasses and forbs are gone. Even vit,h hravy stocking goats usually pass up the hickory.
The total cost of goating includes the price of the goats and a goat- proof fare, the labor required to cut or girdle the trees and saplings, about 3 years of total crop loss because the land brings in no return, plus an untold amount of soil erosion and loss of soil fertility. In some arc&s, coyotes, dogs and ot,hcr predators kill so many goats that a band cannot maintain its number. After the goating is done, the land still needs reseeding.
Drspit,e the obvious disadvan- tages of goating as now practiced, proper manipulation of livestork may provide a practical way to coutrol moody plants. According to some early writers, much of the Ozark region vas originally rather “pen forest uith abundant grass on the forest floor between the trees (Marbut, 1911; Saw, 1920). Since depr arc natural brorscrs, it is conceivable that recurrent fires and the relatively large deer population in pre-scttlmwt days mere suffi- cicnt to keep tree reprodurtion from filling in betvcen the big trees.
ItANGE LIVESTOCI< IS XISSOII11 OZhTtKS 109
Ozarks (Fig. 4). This ranch, first set, up as a privat,e game: park in 1900, has not bc~o burned orer for at, least, 20 years and has been en- closed by deer-proof frncr most of the time for more than 50 years
(Dnlke and Ypencrr, 1044). The
deer population inside hns brm so large that, star-ration has orwrrrd in critical times.
The forrst stands on Skegg’s
rsnrh are rather open and are made
up mostly of post, oak (CJuwcus
stcllata), blark oak ((3. velulina), and associated hard\voods ranging upward in siw from ahout 4 inches d.h.h. Eastern redcedar (lo\v enough on the dew’s srale of food preferrncc to sun-ivc under high dew popnla- tion) is the only commercial tree that is reproducing itself. It is rcprcs&ed hy numrnx~s 1. t,o 6.
foot trees and small swdlings
hcneath the old hardwood owrst,ory and by srat,tered patches of larger tJxcs.
The herbaceous cover on Skagg’s
rsnrh consists mostly of litt,le
bluestan, purplctop, Indian grass
and associated prairie grasses. Most of the forhs arc so small or so well concealed that deer hilve ovcrlookcd
t,hem. Likewise, the broad-leaved
trees on the ranch either are tall enough that, their leavrs are out of reach of drer or are small enough to escape notire (Fig. 4 upper). Out- side Skagg’s fence the grass cover is apitrse hut forhs and woody rcpro- duction are abundant (Fig. 4 lower). What has all this to do with
range management? If deer are
responsible for the absence of
brush and tree reproduction on
Skagg’s ranch, perhaps a similar result, could be ohtjained vith deer on other forcstqd ranges. On fenced private land similar results might he obtained with goats and sheep. Overstocking l!-as involvnl in the browsing job on Skagg’s ranch. No one know-s mhrthpr the result under light,er stocking would hare been its good or t,o what rxtrnt owrstock- ing has damaged t,he site. How~cr,
the results nuggcst t,hat, it, may he possihlc to maintain a satisfactory forage cover hg manipnlnting the kinds and numbus of Ii\-estock.
Reseeding
There has been lit,tle effort to reseed undrwloped Ozark ranyc but many attt-mpt,s have been made to increase the quant~ity alld quality of the forage on old fields. In t,he Ozarks, high yields of hwbagr do not always produce high yipIds of
beef. In the a\wagc-to-wt year,
range-beef pmdnctioo probably is
limited more by low foragr qmlity than by low foragr yield. In drought years low forage yield usually is the limiting factor. ‘I’hr hhlcstrms and
t,hWr assoriatcs, whirh make up the bulk of thr range forage, are warm- ~~8011 grasses. These grasses start growing rather late in the spring, dry up rarly in the fall and hwome rrlat~ivrly unpalatable as they ap- proarh maturity.
Most surrrssfnl rewrdings in the Ozarks have actuallp beru pasture
dwelopmrnts. Usually thr site is
plowrd, t,reated with lime and
