By David Bowser

Rancher monitoring of public rangelands is a controversial subject in New Mexico.

The non-partisan Range Improvement Task Force, which has been in existence for 20 years, is often called upon to render an opinion in such situations, but even they cannot decide whether rancher monitoring is good or bad.

"I don't believe we've ever had a split on an issue like we've had on rancher monitoring," says Dr. John Fowler, a member of the RITF.

He says they haven't been able to resolve it among themselves, let alone make a recommendation.

"It's not black and white," Fowler says. "There's a lot of gray in this particular area."

The laws which establish grazing polices say that the range will be monitored, he points out. The Secretary of Interior and in some instances the Secretary of Agriculture are required to monitor public lands.

The prelude to the Taylor Grazing Act of 1936 says the act is to stop injury to public lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, and provide for orderly use, improvement and development to stabilize the livestock industry.

Specific sections of the Taylor Grazing Act say that the Secretary of Interior shall make provisions for the protection, administration, regulation and improvement of such grazing.

"The Taylor Grazing Act specifies that there will be improvement," Fowler says.

It also says the Secretary of Interior "shall" make such provisions, not "may."

Section Two of the act says the law is to regulate occupancy and preserve the land and its resources from destruction and unnecessary injury, and to provide for orderly use, improvement and development.

"The Taylor Grazing Act is focusing on improvement and development," Fowler says. "Sixty years ago, they were trying to escalate the conditions of the rangeland from the relatively heavy use in the early 1930s."

The Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 says the Secretary of the Interior shall prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resources. Areas of critical environmental concern were addressed in FLPMA, and the law mandates that inventories shall be kept current.

Fowler says they have found allotments where there is little or no historical data available.

The Public Rangelands Improvement Act requires an inventory of public rangeland conditions and trends.

"It's more specific," Fowler says.

It requires the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to update, develop and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of range conditions and a record of trends of range conditions on the public rangelands.

"That's what we have to do," Fowler insists. "Regardless of who does it, that's what needs to be done."

Thus, according to all applicable laws, rangelands need to be monitored, whether by ranchers or federal agencies. They need to be monitored regularly and continuously so a base can be established and a trend determined.

Range condition is defined in PRIA as the quality of the land reflected in its ability in specific vegetative areas to support various levels of production in accordance with range management objectives and the land use planning process and relates to soil quality, forage values, wildlife habitat, watersheds and plant communities. The present state of vegetation of a range site in relation to the potential plant community for that site and relative degree to which the kinds, proportions and amounts of vegetation in a plant community resembles that of the desired community for that site.

"That definition is critical," Fowler says.

It says certain plants have to be there, their frequency and number. There have been instances where ranchers have been penalized even though they've had tremendous production, because the composition of that production was not what was desired.

"This is monitoring in general," Fowler says. "This is what we have to do."

Whether ranchers do the monitoring is another matter, but the monitoring must be done by someone. If it's not, the western livestock industry won't exist.

"If we don't monitor, we aren't there," Fowler said.

The law requires it. Ranchers are going to have to see that it is done. They have to do it to justify their existence, to prove that ranchers are enhancing the resource value, enhancing watershed value and enhancing the wildlife.

"The only way to do that is monitoring," Fowler says.

In some cases, if the rancher is doing the monitoring, it means that at least something's being monitored. There are also indications that increased monitoring translates into increased and better management, Fowler says.

"If you're out there and you're looking not just for current conditions but for long term conditions, you will become a better manager," he says.

With proper monitoring, the rancher will be involved with site location.

"That is critical where those spots have been chosen," Fowler says.

Monitoring sites should not be next to water, a highway or a livestock trail. They should be located on a representative range site.

"Ranchers know their allotments," Fowler says.

Agency personnel, especially those moved every two years, don't.

Monitoring also leads to elevated awareness of the forage base, the biodiversity of the range.

Fowler recommends photographs to document what is happening to the range. The photographs, however, need to indicate location and not just be a closeup of a patch of grass. Pictures need to include landmarks, and the photographs need to be dated.

Also, if a rancher is monitoring his own place there is the potential for more locations per pasture and more pastures being included.

Ranchers obviously have a vested interest, Fowler says, and they often take a larger sample.

Records, particularly actual use records, are also important. The data should include the number of cattle, the season and length of time on the allotment.

If done jointly, the rancher and the agency interaction will result in mutual respect and understanding.

"I think that's a very, very positive aspect of doing it together," Fowler says.

On the other side of the argument, opponents argue that ranchers monitoring public lands would be a case of the fox guarding the hen house.

There is also a question of the rancher's credibility. Fowler says this isn't about how honest a rancher is, but whether he's been trained in range science. Even if he's trained in range science, his knowledge could well be tested in court.

Grazing opponents generally want ranchers to do their own monitoring, Fowler says, so they can pick a place of their choosing — a worst case, not an average site — photograph it and pull the rancher into court to prove the rancher's incompetence.

Another argument against having ranchers do their own monitoring is what Fowler calls "office science," the agency personnel who never leave the office and go into the field. Monitoring at least forces them outdoors for a while. There is also the feeling among ranchers that if they do their own monitoring, they're suddenly working for the government.

On the other hand rancher monitoring would allow an agency to reorganize and put more people in other areas of responsibility, ignoring the grazing aspect.

"It requires time and long term commitment," Fowler says.

Throughout the western states, New Mexico has the best set of data in the country, he says.

"New Mexico rangeland has improved since the Taylor Grazing Act," Fowler says.

The later acts increased the timetable, but there has been significant improvement. Nevertheless, that improvement has to be documented, whether by the rancher or governmental agency.