Over the years, annual reduction of stocking rates have threatened the sustainability of these ranches, and ranchers have to contend with federal agencies to keep their cattle grazing on public lands.
The central Nevada Smith Creek Ranch depends wholly on public lands – 98 percent public and only 2 percent private of 250,000 operational acres.
After nearly 20 years as the ranch manager, Duane Coombs has learned many techniques about the art and science of cattle grazing, along with creating lasting relationships with government agencies. Coombs works diligently with federal agencies to ensure stocking rates are not reduced and the history of the land remains.
Livestock grazing on public lands was regulated in 1934 with passage of the Taylor Grazing Act. The act separated areas into grazing districts while assigning set numbers of animal unit months (AUMs) to each district. One AUM is equal to one cow-calf pair.
These specific numbers, allotted to a grazing district, are referred to as the preference grazing right. These grazing right numbers are vital to the sustainability of any ranch that depends on public lands.
Coombs refers to the preference right numbers as “the hill to die on” because they are a defining metric for the operation’s future.
When stocking rates are reduced year after year by federal agencies, the preference right number can be permanently affected and ranchers have less leeway to work with in the coming years.
“We have to be very careful to hold those preference grazing rights,” Coombs says. “Some of the folks at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are not vicious but don’t understand how it affects the value of the ranch.”
Preference right numbers are what keep public-land ranches, such as the Smith Creek Ranch, in business. It’s what allows them to care for their most valuable investment – cattle.
“Underneath that umbrella of the preference right, we can do a lot of things to hold that number constant,” Coombs says. “We are more willing to make sure we’re leaving standards or trending toward new ones.”
Working to avoid reduction
Often an obvious solution to fix vegetation and land issues is to reduce the number of animals grazing the area. Sherman Swanson, an associate professor and range scientist at University of Nevada – Reno, suggests if ranchers can be creative when there is a possibility of reduction, they can usually figure out a way to avoid the decrease.
Swanson explains that water development is the first step in creating a sustainable grazing management plan. If there is sufficient water in a large pasture, then rotational grazing is definitely an option.
Parts of a pasture could be separated to guarantee animals are not grazing the whole area at once – but are still able to graze. In some situations, ranchers will constantly move their cattle so they are grazing at different intervals in the growing season – giving plants plenty of time to recover.
“It all comes down to timing and duration,” Coombs says. “These are the nuts and bolts of grazing.”
Coombs transitioned from season-grazing to a deferred rotational grazing system due to the terrible drought in recent years. The change didn’t affect the number of AUMs, just the amount of time cattle spent grazing.
Through Coombs’ experience as a ranch manager, he has realized the major difference grazing can make on rangeland.
BLM range manager Melissa Shawcroft works hard to make reduced stocking rates a rare occurrence. In the event of a drought, Shawcroft will give the ranchers in south-central Colorado the choice to reduce their stocking rates or change their duration like Coombs did.
When Shawcroft first started out in her college career, she was completely against livestock grazing on public lands. Her opinion has since been changed after working for the BLM for nearly 25 years and witnessing the results.
“I have seen allotments that have rested too long,” Shawcroft says. “If they don’t get that stimulation from grazing, things go downhill fast.”
Livestock grazing on public lands can be an efficient tool for forage growth and fuel management, but it isn’t necessarily what matters most as opposed to how the livestock are managed.
“The two have to exist and associate and evolve together,” Shawcroft says. “It’s just a matter of how you manage that grazing to have it work right.”
Hard work always pays off
Swanson suggests ranchers need to understand what issues and opportunities they have on their permits and then work to accomplish those through a variety of management tools.
A rancher can make problem spots disappear by applying different forms of management practices – and then possibly not have to reduce their stocking rate.
“It’s all up to them and if they get after their range improvement,” Shawcroft says. “It always pays off for them.”
The Smith Creek Ranch implemented an area management plan (AMP) to fall back on when faced with difficult situations. Coombs stresses how important it is to keep track of the current conditions of allotments and permitee goals.
In 2014, Coombs took a voluntary reduction of 40 percent on a permit because of the terribly dry year. The BLM saw that 40 percent and then moved to make it a permanent reduction.
“They were trying to make long-term decisions from a snapshot of one time,” Coombs says.
But because of the great records and data Coombs had kept from the past, he was able to counter the recent data and avoid permanent reduction on the preference rights.
A life-long partnership
The relationship between a rancher and a federal agency is an “unholy marriage,” according to Swanson. Communication is key for any relationship to be successful – especially between a rancher and a range manager.
“It’s kind of on us to make sure we get along,” Coombs says. “Reducing the permit can put us out of business – not the BLM.”
Most ranchers and range managers both work diligently to ensure a healthy habitat with clean water, green grass and sustainable ecosystems that will produce forage for the generations to come.
“When a range conservationist comes,” Coombs says, “I look at them as a partner.”
Coombs doesn’t try to hide any issues that may be on the permit; he presents them up-front and is very forward when he suggests solutions.
“All of a sudden, they realize you can figure out your own problems,” Coombs says. “They might even leave you alone.”
Because the relationship is imperative to the successful use of the permit, Shawcroft tries to explain to ranchers that she is working to aid them in what they want and, at the same time, manage the resources for future years.
“I try to make them see that the federal government is like the middle person between the livestock growers and the environmental organizations,” Shawcroft says. “We’re in the middle trying to make everybody happy.”
Swanson says communication and honesty between ranchers and federal agencies will lead them to a more successful management plan.
“If you say you’re going to do something, you better do it,” Coombs says. “Regardless if the agencies don’t do something they say they are going to do.”
The bottom line, according to Swanson, is when any conversation becomes about power – no one is focused on the land. Effective land use is primarily decided on the relationship among the federal agencies, the rancher and the land. 
Stocking rates
Stocking rates fluctuate depending on various factors, including:
- Season of use
- Duration of use
- Movement on the permit from year to year
- The length of recovery time
- Probability of getting moisture for plant recovery
- Rest time for plants to recover
PHOTO: A before and after picture that represents effective grazing management in Porter Canyon, Nevada.
This is an old abandoned homestead that is surrounded by BLM land. Duane Coombs built a pasture around the small meadow and proved that controlled grazing can make a difference. Photos courtesy of Duane Coombs.
