Grand River Grasslands
Survey of Landowners and Community Leaders
Elise Regen
Lois Wright Morton
Department of Sociology
James Miller
Department of Landscape Architecture
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
David Engle
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
April 2008
Sociology Technical Report 1025
Grand River Grasslands
Survey of Landowners and Community Leaders
Elise Regen
Lois Wright Morton
Department of Sociology
James Miller
Department of Landscape Architecture
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
David Engle
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
April 2008
This project is funded by the Iowa State University Leopold Center for Sustainable
Agriculture. Report design and format by LaDonna Osborn, Department of Sociology.
Sociology Technical Report 1025
Iowa State University, Department of Sociology, 303 East Hall
Ames IA 50011-1070
ii — Grand River Grasslands
Grand River Grasslands
Survey of Landowners and Community Leaders
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Grand River Grasslands of Ringgold County, Iowa and Harrison County, Missouri are a 70,000
acre conservation priority area composed mostly of privately owned farms and ranches. In fall 2007,
261 landowners and community leaders were sent a mail survey asking them to describe their land
use practices in the grasslands including livestock grazing and control of invasive species. Additional
questions asked about their vision and goals for the grasslands, beliefs about prescribed burning
practices, concerns about Eastern red cedar and tall fescue, social networks, and interest in learning
more about how to manage their grassland/prairie resource.
A total of 87 landowners and 45 community leaders (51 percent response rate) completed
surveys. Almost 60 percent of landowners and 65 percent community leaders report they have lived in
the Grand River Grasslands region 25 years or more. Twenty-five percent live more than 50 miles away
from the grassland region where they own land. About 29 percent of landowners report that 51 percent
or more of their income comes from their land. More than 50 percent say that 25 percent or less of
their income comes from their land. Twenty-seven percent report the primary nature of their property is
mainly a livestock ranch, 19 percent say it is mainly crop production and 33 percent report primarily a
mixed crop and livestock operation. Eleven percent report their property is mainly a wildlife operations
and 16 percent say it is a combination of mixed livestock and wildlife ranch. An average of 319 acres
are grazed by an average of 126 head of mature livestock. Grazing occurs on average nine months of
the year.
About 69 percent of landowners who graze livestock use rotational grazing. A little over 21
percent of landowners say that Eastern red cedar is moderately or extremely abundant and almost 55
percent report tall fescue is moderately or extremely abundant.
Fifty-eight percent of landowners use herbicides on their grasslands and pastures. The increase
in red cedar and other trees is considered a problem primarily because it leads to loss of grasslands (81
percent landowners; 79 percent community leaders) followed by loss of forage (49 percent landowners;
44 percent community). Most landowners (51 percent) and community leaders (70 percent) view
Grand River Grasslands — iii
intentionally setting fires to control invasive species as a legitimate land management tool. However,
very few landowners (25 percent) have been involved in a prescribed burn. The majority of
landowners in Fall 2007 had not considered putting their pasture into biofuel crop production (69
percent).
Environmental issues that are either very important or extremely important to respondents are
reducing soil erosion (95 percent landowners; 91 percent community leaders), controlling invasive
species (86 percent landowners; 88 percent community), and protecting wildlife habitat (69 percent
landowners; 79 percent community). Restoring prairies/grassland is perceived as important, but
to a lesser extent (51 percent landowners; 62 percent). Grassland species that are valued as very
important or extremely important are pheasant, quail, and turkey (80 percent landowners; 60 percent
community); songbirds (62 percent landowners; 52 percent community); wildflowers and native plants
(55 percent landowners; 52 percent community), and butterflies (51 percent landowners; 45 percent
community). The most trusted sources of grassland management information used to make decisions
are other landowners and farmers (71 percent), family and friends (69 percent), USDA NRCS (68
percent); Cooperative Extension (60 percent), university researchers (58 percent), and Iowa/Missouri
DNR (49 percent).
Elise Regen
Lois Wright Morton
Department of Sociology
James Miller
Department of Landscape Architecture
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
David Engle
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
April 2008
iv — Grand River Grasslands
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... iii
FIGURES................................................................................................................................................. vi
MAP OF GRAND RIVER GRASSLANDS......................................................................................... viii
THE GRAND RIVER GRASSLANDS....................................................................................................1
DEMOGRAPHICS....................................................................................................................................1
ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES....................................................................................................3
LAND MANAGEMENT...........................................................................................................................5
FIRE AND INVASIVE SPECIES.............................................................................................................9
SOCIAL NETWORKS............................................................................................................................14
VALUING GRASSLANDS.....................................................................................................................18
A VISION FOR THE FUTURE..............................................................................................................22
Grand River Grasslands — v
Figures
Figure 1. How long have you lived in or owned land in Ringgold/Harrison Counties?............................1
Figure 2. What portion of your household income comes from your land?..............................................2
Figure 3. What is the highest level of education you have completed?.....................................................2
Figure 4. Which category best describes your annual household income (before taxes)?........................2
Figure 5. Please locate yourself on the following scale regarding natural resource use...........................3
Figure 6. How important to you are each of these environmental issues (landowners)?..........................3
Figure 7. How important to you are each of these environmental issues (community leaders)?..............4
Figure 8. What is the primary nature of your property (check all that apply)?.........................................5
Figure 9. How important to you are each of the following when deciding how to manage your land?....6
Figure 10. Grazing in grassland regions is:...............................................................................................7
Figure 11. Which forms of grazing management do you currently use on your pastures?........................7
Figure 12. How do you determine the stocking rate for your grazed pastures?........................................7
Figure 13. Estimate the current abundance of each plant cover type on your land (landowners).............8
Figure 14. Reasons for using herbicides on your land...............................................................................8
Figure 15. What percentage of your land is treated annually with herbicides?.........................................8
Figure 16. What are the reasons you have experimented with new grassland management practices?....9
Figure 17. Why have you never experimented with new grassland management practices?....................9
Figure 18. Have you considered converting existing pasture/grassland into crop production
for the ethanol/biofuel markets?..............................................................................................9
Figure 19. Do you think the increase in red cedar and other trees in grasslands is a problem?..............10
Figure 20. If yes, why is the increase in trees a problem?.......................................................................10
Figure 21. Intentionally setting fires in grassland regions is:..................................................................10
Figure 22. Have you ever taken action to control red cedar or other trees on your
pastures/grasslands?...............................................................................................................11
Figure 23. If yes, what type of action?.....................................................................................................11
Figure 24. Have you ever participated in a prescribed burn on a pasture or grassland?.........................11
Figure 25. How concerned are you about the following possible effects of local prescribed
burns (landowners)?...............................................................................................................12
vi — Grand River Grasslands
Figure 26. How concerned are you about the following possible effects of prescribed
burns (community leaders)?...................................................................................................12
Figure 27. How would you feel about the following taking place locally to control red
cedar (landowners)?...............................................................................................................13
Figure 28. How would you feel about the following taking place locally to control red
cedar (community leaders)?...................................................................................................13
Figure 29. Do you hold any of the following positions in the community?............................................14
Figure 30. How much do you trust the following sources in making land management
decisions (landowners)?.........................................................................................................15
Figure 31. How often have you worked with neighbors in the following ways (landowners)?..............16
Figure 32. How often have you worked with neighbors in the following ways (community leaders)?..16
Figure 33. How important to you are each of the following uses of local prairies and grasslands
(community leaders)?.............................................................................................................17
Figure 34. Estimate the current abundance of each plant cover on the prairies/grasslands
near where you live (community leaders)..............................................................................18
Figure 35. How important is it to you to have the following on your land (landowners)?......................19
Figure 36. How important is it to you to have the following on your land (community leaders)?.........19
Figure 37. How important is restoring grasslands and prairies to you?...................................................20
Figure 38. How important is controlling invasive plants to you?............................................................20
Figure 39. To what extent do you think people in your community value protecting their
local prairies/grasslands (community leaders)?.....................................................................20
Figure 40. What types of activities would you be willing to engage in to promote prairie/
grassland restoration (community leaders)?..........................................................................21
Figure 41. How interested would you be in participating in a community project to protect
local prairies/grasslands (community leaders)?.....................................................................21
Figure 42. Would you be interested in attending a prescribed burning demonstration or farm tour?.....21
Grand River Grasslands — vii
Lincoln Twshp
Lotts Creek Twshp
Riley Twshp
viii — Grand River Grasslands
DEMOGRAPHICS
Forty-eight percent of the landowners who
participated in this survey said they live on their
land, while 52 percent do not. For those who don’t
live on their land, 54 percent live less than 50
miles away, 11 percent live between 50-100 miles
away, and 35 percent live more than 100 miles
from their land. Thus 21 landowners (24 percent
of all landowners) live more than 50 miles away
from the grassland region and are considered nonresident landowners.
100
Landowners
Community leaders
80
39.3
32.6
20.2
20.2
20.9
2.3
20
11.9
40
32.6
60
11.6
In fall of 2007, 181 landowners and 80 selected
community leaders of the Grand River Grassland
region were surveyed in order to learn about
current use of the grasslands, what they mean
to those who own land, and how residents
think they ought to be managed. Community
leaders included Iowa and Missouri fire
and local public safety departments, elected
officials such as SWCD commissioners, county
This report summarizes the major findings of
the perceptions and attitudes of landowners
and leaders in the Grand River Grasslands. The
report begins with a description of demographic
characteristics of surveyed respondents in
Ringgold and Harrison Counties. Findings from
the survey are then graphically displayed with text
highlighting key points from each question.
8.3
An Iowa State University research project,
Restoring Grassland, Grazing, and Wildlife
in Southern Iowa, is experimentally testing
approaches to restoring a fully functioning
prairie landscape in the context of working lands
composed mostly of privately owned farms and
ranches. This 70,000-acre conservation priority
area consists of public preserves and private
agricultural and recreational lands. The goal
is a socially attractive, culturally acceptable,
and viable regional economy based on grazing
and recreational land-use in the Grand River
Grasslands. Funding and partnerships for
this multi-disciplinary research and outreach
project includes the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources, USDA-National Research
Initiative, Joint Fire Sciences Program, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, Leopold Center for
Sustainable Agriculture, Practical Farmers of
Iowa, Southern Iowa Forage and Livestock
Committee, and Iowa State University researchers
in four departments: Sociology; Natural Resource
Ecology Management; Ecology, Evolution, and
Organismal Biology; and Landscape Architecture.
supervisors, science teachers, leaders of voluntary
organizations whose members are concerned
about forage and livestock, organizations with
specific environment and/or grassland missions,
ISU Cooperative Extension 4-H leaders, and local
county, state and federal agency staff responsible
for agricultural land use, and fish and wildlife
conservation. The overall survey response rate
was 51 percent with 132 completed surveys
returned by 87 landowners (48 percent) and 45
community leaders (56 percent).
Percent
THE GRAND RIVER GRASSLANDS
Much of Iowa and Missouri were once covered
by prairies where vast herds of bison grazed.
Today less than one-tenth of one percent of this
endangered ecosystem remains. The central
portion of Ringgold County, Iowa and Harrison
County, Missouri, an area known as the Grand
River Grasslands, has some of the largest prairie
remnants in the region and is home to extensive
grasslands where cattle graze, native prairie birds
and plants thrive, and hunters bag trophy deer,
wild turkey, and pheasant.
0
Under 5
years
6-10
years
11-25
years
Over 25
years
More than
one
generation
Figure 1. How long have you lived in or owned land in
Ringgold/Harrison Counties?
Grand River Grasslands — 1
Figure 1 shows that 39.3 percent of landowners
have lived in Ringgold or Harrison County for
more than generation, 20.2 percent have lived
here for over 25 years, 20.2 percent have lived
here from 11-25 years, and 11.9 percent have
lived here for 6-10 years. Only 8.3 percent of
landowners have lived in the area for less than
5 years. Fewer community leaders have lived in
these counties for more than one generation (32.6
percent), but more have lived here for over 25
years (32.6 percent) as compared to landowners.
Only 2.3 percent of community leaders have lived
here from 11-25 years, while 20.9 percent have
been here from 6-10 years, and 11.6 percent have
lived in the area for less than 5 years.
The portion of landowner household income that
comes from their land is displayed in Figure 2.
Almost 29 percent received 51 percent or more of
their income from the land. There are 17.5 percent
100
who receive over 75 percent of their income from
their land, 11.3 percent who get 51-75 percent of
80
40
Under
10%
11-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
Figure 2. What portion of your household income
comes from your land?
100
100
High Technical/ Some Bachelor’s Some Graduate or
school vocational college degree graduate professional
degree
school
graduate school
Figure 3. What is the highest level of education you
have completed?
2 — Grand River Grasslands
an
10.1
22.5
26.1
30.0
21.7
5.0
17.5
7.2
1.4
0.0
$1
0
4.3
7.5
31.8
12.5
4.5
3.8
22.7
12.5
18.2
21.3
6.8
40
th
Some
high
school
60
20
Le
ss
0
0.0
0.0
20
11.3
38.8
40
15.9
Percent
60
Landowners
Community leaders
5,
00
00
0
$2
-2
4
5,
00 ,99
9
$3 0-3
4,
5,
9
00
99
$5 0-4
9,
0,
99
00
9
$7 0-7
4,
5,
9
00
99
0$1
99
00
,9
,0
99
00
1
$1
49
50
,9
,0
99
00
-1
$2
99
00
,9
,0
99
00
or
m
or
e
Landowners
Community leaders
80
Percent
80
13.0
5.0
None
5,
0
0
17.5
11.3
8.8
Annual household incomes (before taxes)
are displayed in Figure 4. Of the landowners
who participated in this survey, 13 percent
make $200,000 or more, 15.9 percent between
$100,000-199,999, and 10.1 percent between
$75,000-99,999 annually. The largest number
of landowners (26.1 percent), make between
$50,000-74,999 annually. Of the community
leaders who participated in this survey, 5
percent make $200,000 or more, 12.5 percent
5.8
0.0
21.3
17.5
The educational level of respondents is shown in
Figure 3. Overall, community leaders have higher
educational attainment, with 31.8 percent holding
graduate or professional degrees, 4.5 percent
some graduate school, and 22.7 percent with
bachelor’s degrees. A little more than 12 percent
of landowners have graduate or professional
degrees, 3.8 percent some graduate school, and
12.5 percent have bachelor’s degrees.
10.1
12.5
23.8
20
A large portion of survey respondents are male
(82.7 percent of landowners and 77.3 percent of
community leaders are male). The balance are
female (17.3 percent landowners; 22.7 percent
community).
$1
Percent
60
their income from their land and 21.3 percent who
get 26-50 percent of their income from their land.
Over 50 percent of landowners report 25 percent
or less of their income from their land. Almost 9
percent receive no income from their land.
Figure 4. Which category best describes your annual
household income (before taxes)?
80
Landowners
Community leaders
2
3
4
19.5
16.7
5
6
7
8
Both economic
and environmental
considerations should
have equal priority
5.2
2.4
1
Economic
considerations
should have
highest priority
3.9
2.4
0
1.3
0.0
5.2
11.9
20
0.0
2.4
40
37.7
31.0
19.5
14.3
6.5
14.3
60
1.3
4.8
ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES
In Figure 5, landowners and community leaders
were asked to rate the importance they place on
natural resource use and whether economic or
environmental considerations should have the
highest priority. Over 57 percent of landowners
and 47.7 percent of community leaders think that
both economic and environmental considerations
(rating 5 or 6) should have equal priority in
natural resource decisions. Of the respondents
who think that environmental conditions
should have the highest priority, 5.2 percent
are landowners and 2.4 percent are community
leaders. For those who felt that economic
considerations should have the highest priority,
1.3 percent are landowners and 4.8 percent are
community leaders.
100
Percent
$100,000-149,999, and 22.5 percent between
$75,000-99,999 annually. The largest number of
community leaders (30 percent) also fell into the
$50,000-74,999 income bracket.
9
10
Environmental
conditions should
have highest
priority
Figure 5. Please locate yourself on the following scale
regarding natural resource use
In order to better understand local attitudes
towards specific environmental issues, the
survey asked respondents how important it
was to them to reduce soil erosion, increase
biodiversity, protect wildlife habitat, restore
prairies/grasslands, control invasive species,
and enhance watersheds. Figure 6 shows that 95
percent of landowners think that reducing soil
erosion is either very important or extremely
100
Extremely important
Very important
No opinion
80
Somewhat important
Not important
0.0
1.2
11.0
7.2
1.2
3.6
Protecting
wildlife
habitat
7.2
9.8
18.3
22.0
17.1
26.8
35.4
15.9
26.5
26.5
31.2
Increasing
biodiversity
42.7
48.2
Reducing
soil
erosion
0.0
0
0.0
4.9
7.8
14.3
15.6
31.2
40
20
37.3
42.2
48.1
46.9
Percent
60
Restoring
prairies/
grasslands
Controlling
invasive
species
Enhancing
watersheds
Figure 6. How important to you are each of these environmental issues (landowners)?
Grand River Grasslands — 3
100
Extremely important
Very important
No opinion
80
Somewhat important
61.9
Not important
Reducing
soil
erosion
48.8
16.3
Restoring
prairies/
grasslands
Controlling
invasive
species
0.0
9.3
7.1
0.0
4.8
7.1
4.8
2.3
Protecting
wildlife
habitat
25.6
26.2
16.7
11.6
2.4
Increasing
biodiversity
26.2
45.2
0
0.0
2.3
6.8
7.0
20
12.2
17.1
25.6
40
31.7
36.6
40.9
Percent
50.0
53.5
60
Enhancing
watersheds
Figure 7. How important to you are each of these environmental issues (community leaders)?
important. Only 45.5 percent of landowners
think that increasing biodiversity is either very
important or extremely important, while 31.2
percent have no opinion, and 7.8 percent think
it is not important. Protecting wildlife habitat
is either very important or extremely important
to 68.7 percent of landowners, 3.6 percent have
no opinion, 26.5 percent think it is somewhat
important, and 1.2 percent think it is not
important. Restoring prairies/grasslands is either
very important or extremely important to 51.3
percent, 17.1 percent have no opinion, 22 percent
think it is somewhat important, and 9.8 percent
think it is not important. Controlling invasive
species is either very important or extremely
important to 85.5 percent of landowners, with
none of the respondents believing this issue is
unimportant. Enhancing watersheds is either very
important or extremely important to 69.5 percent
of landowners, 11 percent have no opinion, 18.3
percent think it is somewhat important, and 1.2
percent think this is not an important issue.
4 — Grand River Grasslands
The responses by community leaders to the same
questions are displayed in Figure 7. Reducing
soil erosion is either very important or extremely
important to 90.9 percent of community leaders,
with none feeling that the issue is unimportant.
Increasing biodiversity is either very important
or extremely important to 53.7 percent, while
31.7 percent have no opinion. Approximately
79 percent of community leaders think that
protecting wildlife habitat is either very important
or extremely important, with 7 percent claiming
no opinion, 11.6 percent thinking it is somewhat
important, and 2.3 percent thinking it is not an
important issue. Regarding the restoration of
prairies/grasslands, 61.9 percent of community
leaders thought this is either very important or
extremely important, 26.2 percent think it is
somewhat important, and 7.1 percent think it
is not important. Controlling invasive species
is either very important or extremely important
to 88.1 percent, while 74.4 percent think that
enhancing watersheds is either very important or
extremely important.
LAND MANAGEMENT
In Figure 8, landowners describe the primary
nature of their property in Ringgold and Harrison
Counties, with 40 percent stating it is a longterm investment, 32.9 percent report a mixed
crop and livestock operation, 27.1 percent have
mainly a livestock ranch, and 27.1 percent say
their property is primarily a residence. Almost
19 percent of landowners identify their land as a
crop production farm, 16.5 percent run a mixed
livestock and wildlife ranch, 10.6 percent have a
wildlife operation, and 4.7 percent say that their
property is a weekend retreat or vacation home.
In order to determine landowner priorities and
values, they were asked to rate the importance
of various issues when deciding how to manage
their land. Figure 9 shows that being a good
steward of the land is rated as the most important
consideration for landowners in this area, with
53.8 percent stating this is extremely important
to them. Other issues that the highest number
of respondents rank as extremely important are
income from agriculture (43 percent), quietly
enjoying my land (41.5 percent), conserving land
for future income (36.6 percent), leaving land for
future generations (34.9 percent), and property
values (34.1 percent). The categories that are rated
least important when deciding how to manage
land are recreation (17.1 percent) and forestry
(31.6 percent). Livestock are rated extremely
important to 30 percent and very important to
33.8 percent of landowners. Protecting prairies/
Long term investment
40.0
Mixed crop and livestock operation
32.9
Mainly a livestock ranch
27.1
Primarily a residence
27.1
Mainly a crop production farm
18.8
Mixed livestock and wildlife ranch
16.5
Mainly a wildlife operation
10.6
A weekend retreat or vacation home
4.7
Other
4.7
Tourist operation 0.0
0
20
Percent
40
60
Figure 8. What is the primary nature of your property
(check all that apply)?
grasslands are rated extremely important to 25
percent and very important to 35 percent of
landowners.
Figure 10 compares landowner and community
leader attitudes towards grazing in grassland
regions. Grazing is overwhelmingly seen as a
legitimate land management tool by 68.3 percent
of landowners and 79.5 percent of community
leaders. No community leaders saw it as an
unnecessary practice or something to be avoided
due to negative impacts, while 15.9 percent
thought it was something to be done infrequently.
Only 1.2 percent of landowners think it should
be avoided, 3.7 percent see it as an unnecessary
practice, while 6.1 percent think it should only be
done infrequently. Of the respondents who are not
sure about the role of grazing in grasslands, 4.5
percent are community leaders and 20.7 percent
are landowners.
The number of landowners who utilize livestock
grazing on their land is 59 percent. On average
they graze 126 head of mature livestock with
a range from 4 to 850 livestock. The average
acres grazed are 319 acres with a range of 20 to
2,800 acres. Pastures are grazed on an average
nine months, though responses ranged from five
months to year-round. Figure 11 shows the types
of grazing management that are currently utilized
by landowners. Rotational grazing is practiced
by 68.9 percent and continuous grazing is used
by 27.9 percent. Eighteen percent utilize reduced
stocking rates, 11.5 percent allow seasonal or
year-long rest from grazing, and 9.8 percent
practice management-intensive grazing.
For those who graze their land, Figure 12
reveals the rationale for how landowners
determine stocking rates. Balancing forage
production with forage demand is the most
important consideration (50 percent), followed
by determining the stocking rate according
to the number of livestock they have (40.5
percent). Livestock performance is a factor for
33.3 percent, 23.8 percent look at economics,
and wildlife habitat is a consideration for 16.7
Grand River Grasslands — 5
Being a good steward
1.3
3.8
1.3
of the land
Income from
43.0
38.0
1.3
agriculture
12.7
5.1
Quietly enjoying
41.5
42.7
2.4
my land
Extremely important
11.0
2.4
36.6
Conserving land for
1.2
future income
Leaving land for
34.1
2.4
3.7
11.3
21.3
25.0
11.3
24.1
20.3
11.4
farming tradition
22.8
21.5
23.0
10.8
14.9
Forage
31.1
20.3
22.1
9.1
11.7
Row crops
32.5
24.7
14.8
Income from
11.1
government programs
30.9
21.0
22.2
12.2
Recreation
34.1
3.7
32.9
17.1
1.3
Forestry
13.9
0
35.0
21.3
7.5
Maintaining family
50.0
30.0
33.8
Protecting prairies/
grasslands
Not important
9.8
3.8
Livestock
Somewhat important
16.9
8.4
values
No opinion
34.9
34.9
4.8
Property
Very important
46.3
13.4
2.4
future generations
53.8
40.0
20
25.3
27.8
31.6
40
Percent
60
80
Figure 9. How important to you are each of the following when deciding how to manage your land?
6 — Grand River Grasslands
100
79.5
Landowners
Community leaders
60
20.7
4.5
0.0
1.2
0.0
0
3.7
6.1
20
Legitimate land To be done Unnecessary To be avoided
management infrequently
practice due to negative
tool
impacts
Not sure
Figure 10. Grazing in grassland regions is:
100
80
Percent
68.9
60
40
27.9
20
0
Rotational Continuous
grazing
grazing
24.7
No
grazing
18.0
11.5
Reduced
stocking
9.8
Seasonal Managementor yearintensive
long rest
grazing
Figure 11. Which forms of grazing management do
you currently use on your pastures?
Balancing forage production with forage demand
50.0
40.5
By the number of livestock I have
33.3
Livestock performance
23.8
Economics
16.7
Wildlife habitat requirements
9.5
Other
Unconcerned with stocking rate
2.4
Not applicable 0.0
0
20
40
Percent
percent of landowners. Only 2.4 percent of
respondents claim they are unconcerned with
stocking rates.
Survey results also show that 47 percent of
landowners provide supplemental feed to their
livestock while they are on pasture, 43 percent do
not, and 9 percent state it is not applicable.
40
15.9
Percent
80
68.3
100
60
Figure 12. How do you determine the stocking rate for
your grazed pastures?
Figure 13 reveals the estimated current abundance
of each plant cover type on landowner properties.
Almost 79 percent of lands are reported to be
open pasture or grassland. About 21 percent say
red cedar are abundant. Open pasture/grassland
are rated as extremely abundant by 28.8 percent
and moderately abundant by 50 percent of
respondents. Tall fescue is rated as extremely
abundant by 14.3 percent and moderately
abundant by 40.3 percent of landowners. Red
cedar is rated extremely abundant by 2.8 percent,
moderately abundant by 18.3 percent, and found
occasionally by 35.2 percent of the property
owners. Other types of trees and forest are
estimated as moderately abundant by 43.8 percent
of respondents, while oak savanna is considered
rare or not present by 55.5 percent of respondents.
Landowners were asked if they use herbicides on
their pastures/grasslands, and 58 percent answered
“yes.” Of those who use herbicides, 54 percent
use them only occasionally, while 4 percent use
them on a regular basis. Figure 14 shows the
reasons for herbicide use, with 89.8 percent using
them to control weeds, 26.5 percent using them
to control poisonous plants, and 20.4 percent
applying herbicides to increase forage production.
Landowners were asked what percentage of
their land is treated annually with herbicides.
Figure 15 reveals that 82.6 percent of respondents
apply herbicides to less than 25 percent of their
land. The number of landowners that treat 25-50
percent of their land with herbicides is 10.9
percent, and 4.3 percent use herbicides on 51-75
percent of their land annually. Only 2.2 percent
of respondents treat over 75 percent of their land
annually with herbicides.
Grand River Grasslands — 7
100
Extremely abundant
Moderately abundant
Found occasionally
80
Rare
Not present
31.7
11.1
18.3
22.2
25.4
18.3
16.4
1.6
2.8
6.8
6.8
7.8
9.1
14.3
3.8
7.5
10.0
20
26.0
28.6
28.8
35.2
40
33.3
43.8
40.3
Percent
50.0
60
0
Open pasture/
grassland
Tall
fescue
Other trees/
forest
Red
cedar
Oak
savanna
Figure 13. Estimated current abundance of each plant cover type on your land
We also wanted to know if landowners had
ever experimented with new pasture/grassland
management practices on their land; 70 percent
state that they have not experimented. For the 30
percent who have experimented, Figure 16 shows
the reasons for experimentation. The primary
reasons are to improve forage production (81.3
percent), to improve profits (62.5 percent), to
20.4%
10.2%
89.8%
improve soil quality (50 percent), and to improve
wildlife habitat or increase property values (both
43.8 percent). The reasons given by those who
have never experimented are displayed in Figure
17, with 37.5 percent content with the way things
are, 21.9 percent lack the equipment, and 18.8
percent are either retiring soon, have inadequate
labor, or think it will cost too much. None of
10.9%
4.3% 2.2%
82.6%
26.5%
To control weeds
To increase forage production
To control poisonous plants
Other
Figure 14. Reasons for using herbicides on your land
8 — Grand River Grasslands
Under 25%
25-50%
51-75%
Over 75%
Figure 15. What percentage of your land is treated annually with herbicides?
the respondents state that concern over what the
neighbors might think is a reason for why they
have never experimented.
Because of the increasing importance of biofuel
production in Iowa, the survey also asked
landowners if they have considered converting
existing pasture/grassland into crop production for
the ethanol/biofuel markets. Figure 18 shows that
only 3.8 percent state that they are planning to
convert or have already done so, while 10 percent
have seriously considered it and 17.5 percent have
briefly considered it. The majority of landowners
(68.8 percent) have not considered putting their
pastures/grassland into biofuel crop production.
FIRE AND INVASIVE SPECIES
Gauging local perceptions towards invasive
species and woody encroachment was a major
objective in conducting this survey in the Grand
River Grasslands region. Both landowners and
community leaders were asked if they think that
the increase in red cedar and other trees in the
grasslands is a problem, with the results displayed
in Figure 19. Community leaders are slightly
more likely to perceive red cedar as a problem,
with 45.5 percent believing it is a major problem
(compared to 44.4 percent of landowners), and
38.6 percent considering it a minor problem
(compared to 32.1 percent of landowners). For
those who are not sure if it is a problem, 16
percent are landowners and 11.4 percent are
community leaders.
To improve
forage production
To improve profits
62.5
To improve
soil quality
50.0
To improve
wildlife habitat
43.8
To increase
property values
43.8
To improve
water quality
37.5
Required by
agency programs
18.8
Other
6.3
0
20
40
Percent
60
80
100
Figure 16. What are the reasons you have experimented with new grassland management practices?
Content with the
way things are
Lack of equipment
37.5
21.9
Retiring soon
18.8
Costs too much
18.8
Inadequate labor
18.8
Lack of time
15.6
Don’t know any
new practices
Other
12.5
6.3
Not profitable
Worried what the
neighbors might think
3.1
0.0
0
20
40
Percent
60
80
Figure 17. Why have you never experimented with
new grassland management practices?
Figure 20 shows the reasons why those who
thought red cedar is a problem felt that way.
Loss of grasslands is the primary reason selected
by respondents, followed by loss of forage, and
then loss of wildlife habitat. The risk of fire was
also identified as a concern by 15.8 percent of
community leaders and 8.1 percent of landowners.
Gauging local beliefs and attitudes towards
prescribed burning was another major objective
in conducting this survey, and landowners and
community leaders were asked how they felt
about fires being set in grassland regions. Figure
81.3
3.8%
10.0%
17.5%
68.8%
I am planning to convert or have already done so
I have briefly considered it
I have seriously considered it
No
Figure 18. Have you considered converting existing
pasture/grassland into crop production for the ethanol/
biofuel markets?
Grand River Grasslands — 9
100
Landowners
Community leaders
0
Major
problem
Minor
problem
4.5
7.4
20
11.4
16.0
32.1
40
38.6
45.5
60
44.4
Percent
80
Not a
problem
Not
sure
Figure 19. Do you think the increase in red cedar and
other trees in grasslands is a problem?
44.7
60
Landowners
Community leaders
49.2
0
Loss of Loss of
grasslands forage
Loss of
wildlife
habitat
Water
quality
10.5
4.8
6.5
Fire
risk
7.9
15.8
8.1
20
21.1
40
22.6
Percent
80
78.9
81.0
100
Other
Figure 20. If yes, why is the increase in trees a problem?
100
70.5
25.6
2.3
6.1
15.9
0
6.1
6.8
20
11.0
40
Legitimate land Unnecessary To be done To be avoided
management tool practice
infrequently due to negative
impacts
4.5
60
51.2
Percent
80
Landowners
Community leaders
Not sure
Figure 21. Intentionally setting fires in grassland regions is:
10 — Grand River Grasslands
21 shows that 70.5 percent of community leaders
and 51.2 percent of landowners see prescribed
burning as a legitimate land management tool,
while 15.9 percent of community leaders and 6.1
percent of landowners think it is something to be
done infrequently. For those who think it is an
unnecessary practice, 11 percent are landowners
and 6.8 percent are community leaders. The
respondents who are not sure about setting fires
in grasslands are primarily landowners (25.6
percent), although 4.5 percent of community
leaders are also not sure about this issue.
In Figure 22, landowners were asked if they had
ever taken action to control red cedar or other
trees on their pastures/grasslands. Almost 38
percent say they do so on a regular basis, 46.3
percent do occasionally, and 15.9 percent state
they have never taken any action to control trees
on their property. For those who have taken
action, Figure 23 shows what type of methods
they have used for controlling trees. Hand
removal is done by 75.4 percent, mowing by
59.4 percent, bulldozing by 30.4 percent, and
herbicides are used by 20.3 percent. Burning is
only utilized by 15.9 percent of landowners to
control trees on their land.
Only 14 percent of landowners say that they
have incurred major costs over the last 5 years
in controlling red cedar, while 59 percent have
incurred minimal costs and 27 percent have
incurred no costs at all.
Landowners and community leaders were also
asked whether they have ever participated in a
prescribed burn on a pasture or grassland. Figure
24 reveals that the majority have not (70 percent
of landowners and 55.8 percent of community
leaders), while 44.2 percent of community leaders
and 25 percent of landowners have been involved
in a prescribed burn before. Only 4.8 percent of
landowners did not know what a prescribed burn
is.
The survey tried to determine what the greatest
concerns are locally regarding the possible
Community leader responses are displayed in
Figure 28, revealing that prescribed burning has
greater support in this subgroup than among
landowners, with 82.9 percent of community
leaders somewhat or strongly supportive.
Mechanical removal has the same level of
support (82.9 percent), followed by 58.6 percent
somewhat or strongly supportive of the formation
of prescribed burning co-ops. Herbicides are least
supported by community leaders as a method
for controlling red cedar, with only 51.2 percent
somewhat or strongly supportive and 39.1 percent
somewhat or strongly opposed.
37.8%
46.3%
Yes, regularly
Yes, occasionally
No
Figure 22. Have you ever taken action to control red
cedar or other trees on your pastures/grasslands?
100
80
Percent
In order to determine what land management
practices are most acceptable locally for
controlling red cedar, respondents were asked
how supportive they would be of herbicide use,
mechanical removal, and prescribed burning.
Figure 27 shows that landowners are most
supportive of mechanical removal (89.4 percent
are either somewhat or strongly supportive),
followed by herbicides (63.5 percent) and then
prescribed burning (60.2 percent). The formation
of prescribed burning co-ops is either somewhat
or strongly supported by 47.1 percent of
landowners, while 40 percent have no opinion.
15.9%
75.4
59.4
60
40
30.4
20.3
20
15.9
5.8
0
Hand
removal
Mowing
Bulldozing/ Herbicides
backhoe
Burning
Other
Figure 23. If yes, what type of action?
100
80
Percent
negative effects of prescribed burning. Figure
25 shows that liability is a moderate to great
concern for 68.3 percent of landowners, followed
by damage to private property (55.1 percent)
and loss of wildlife habitat (46.9 percent) as the
issues of greatest concern. Loss of forage is only
a moderate to great concern for 36.8 percent of
landowners. Community leader responses for
the same question are portrayed in Figure 26,
and show that liability is once again the primary
concern—with 63.4 percent believing it is a
moderate to great concern. Damage to private
property is the next most important concern
(a moderate to great concern for 60 percent),
although community leaders subsequently felt
that soil erosion is a more important concern
(a moderate to great concern for 39.1 percent)
than the loss of wildlife habitat that is a stronger
concern for landowners.
Landowners
Community leaders
70.2
60
55.8
44.2
40
25.0
20
4.8
0
Yes
No
0.0
I don’t know what
a prescribed burn is
Figure 24. Have you ever participated in a prescribed
burn on a pasture or grassland?
Grand River Grasslands — 11
100
Great concern
Moderate concern
80
Slight concern
Not a concern
Don't know
46.1
19.7
23.7
33.8
5.3
5.3
6.5
16.9
11.7
8.9
11.7
12.7
18.2
24.1
21.5
31.2
32.9
31.2
24.7
14.3
13.9
15.2
20.3
6.3
7.6
8.8
16.3
19.0
18.8
26.6
26.6
20.3
7.7
0.0
0
30.0
26.3
34.6
6.3
7.6
20
21.8
20.5
17.7
40
32.9
35.4
44.3
Percent
60
Liability
Damage to
private
property
Loss of
wildlife
habitat
Soil
erosion
Risk to
human
safety
Harm to
wildlife
Loss of
forage
Levels of
smoke
Reduced
scenic
quality
Figure 25. How concerned are you about the following possible effects of local prescribed burns (landowners)?
100
Great concern
Moderate concern
80
Slight concern
Damage to
private
property
Risk to
human
safety
Harm to
wildlife
29.3
Loss of
wildlife
habitat
0.0
9.8
12.2
14.6
12.2
17.1
0.0
Loss of
forage
Levels of
smoke
0.0
26.8
19.5
12.2
0.0
2.4
2.4
Soil
erosion
41.5
39.0
36.6
14.6
17.1
19.5
26.8
34.1
29.3
29.3
24.4
9.8
Liability
0.0
4.9
2.4
2.5
0
17.1
22.0
12.5
19.5
17.1
31.7
31.7
29.3
39.0
40.0
20.0
25.0
Percent
20
41.5
Don't know
60
40
63.4
Not a concern
Reduced
scenic
quality
Figure 26. How concerned are you about the following possible effects of prescribed burns (community leaders)?
12 — Grand River Grasslands
100
Strongly supportive
Somewhat supportive
No opinion
80
Somewhat opposed
Strongly opposed
Percent
60
44.7 44.7
43.2
40.0
40
34.2
31.5
26.0
20
25.7
21.4
20.3
14.9
9.5
12.2
7.9
1.3
2.7
1.3
5.7
5.5
7.1
0
Use of
herbicides
Mechanical
removal
Prescribed
burning
Formation of
burning co-ops
Figure 27. How would you feel about the following taking place locally to control red cedar (landowners)?
100
Strongly supportive
Somewhat supportive
No opinion
80
Somewhat opposed
Strongly opposed
Percent
60
43.9
43.9
39.0
40
39.0
34.1
24.4
29.3
26.8
29.3 29.3
20
14.6
9.8
9.8
9.8
0.0
0
Use of
herbicides
Mechanical
removal
2.4
4.9
Prescribed
burning
2 .4
4.9
2 .4
Formation of
burning co-ops
Figure 28. How would you feel about the following taking place locally to control red cedar (community leaders)?
Grand River Grasslands — 13
Elected official
6.0
Public safety official
2.4
6.7
Business owner/manager
Conservation officer
Volunteer fire department
Community organization leader
24.4
0.0
Youth group leader
13.1
Church leader
1.2
Science teacher
Other
6.7
7.1
Landowners
Community leaders
23.8
24.4
2.4
2.2
0.0
4.4
4.8
6.7
6.0
Financial officer
which landowners claim to
have limited or no trust in are
the newspaper (68 percent),
the Environmental Protection
Agency (64.9 percent), the
Internet (64.3 percent), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife/U.S. Forest
Service (48.6 percent), and
then private organizations (46.7
percent).
24.4
26.7
33.3
17.8
Levels of local social
interaction were measured by
Percent
asking respondents how often
Figure 29. Do you hold any of the following positions in the community?
they have worked with their
neighbors. Figure 31 reveals
SOCIAL NETWORKS
that the activities that landowners undertake most
Figure 29 identifies what positions in the
frequently with their neighbors are exchanging
community the respondents hold. The positions
information or ideas (29.9 percent), fencing
most frequently reported by landowners are
agreements (22.4 percent), and leasing land to
business owner/manager (23.8 percent), followed each other (14.3 percent). The highest frequency
by church leader (13.1 percent), other unspecified of activities that are done occasionally between
positions (7.1 percent), and then elected official or neighbors are sharing equipment/supplies
community organization leader (both 6 percent).
and fencing agreements (both 67.1 percent),
The positions most frequently held by community exchanging information or ideas (55.8 percent),
leaders are church leader (33.3 percent), followed and then hunting/fishing on each other’s land
by youth group leader (26.7 percent), and then
(54.7 percent). Activities that are listed by the
business owner/manager, elected official, or
most respondents as never participating in with
community organization leader (all 24.4 percent). neighbors are conducting burns together (88.2
percent) and joining in business partnerships (80.3
In order to determine which sources of
percent).
information that landowners trust the most in
making land management decisions, the survey
Community leaders (Figure 32) engage the
asked them whether they had full, moderate,
most frequently with neighbors in exchanging
limited, or no trust in various information
information or ideas (43.9 percent), hunting/
sources. Figure 30 shows that landowners have
fishing on each other’s land (23.8 percent),
the most trust in other landowners/farmers
and managing deer or other wildlife together
when making decisions about their land, with
(14.3 percent). The activities they do the most
71.2 percent having moderate to full trust in
occasionally are sharing equipment/supplies
them. Next is family/friends (moderate to
(64.3 percent), fencing agreements (57.5 percent),
full trust by 68.9 percent), followed by the
helping each other work livestock (53.7 percent),
USDA-NRCS (68 percent), magazines/journal
and hunting/fishing on each other’s land (52.4
articles (67.6 percent), books (60.8 percent),
percent). Things that are never done together are
Cooperative Extension (59.7 percent), university
join in business partnerships (82.9 percent), lease
researchers (58.1 percent), and then Iowa/
land to each other (73.2 percent), and conduct
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (48.6
burns together (73.2 percent).
percent). The least trusted information sources
0
14 — Grand River Grasslands
20
40
60
80
100
31.1
Family and
friends
20.3
6.8
4.1
USDA NRCS
4.0
Cooperative Extension
26.7
41.3
20.0
8.0
5.6
37.8
19.4
40.3
25.0
Full
9.7
Moderate
16.2
Iowa and
Missouri DNR
32.4
23.0
23.0
5.4
Limited
None
13.7
Other landowners/
farmers
23.3
2.7
2.7
12.2
University
researchers
6.8
12.2
12.0
U.S. Fish and Wildlife/
U.S. Forest Service
4.1
5.4
52.7
25.7
9.5
62.2
24.3
4.1
4.1
4.1
25.7
EPA
5.4
4.1
31.1
33.8
26.0
Internet
34.2
30.1
5.5
2.7
25.3
Newspaper
49.3
18.7
4.0
11.8
11.8
Other
35.1
24.3
24.3
6.8
8.1
Books
30.7
22.7
24.0
10.7
9.5
23.5
41.2
11.8
0
Don't know
45.9
23.0
Private
organizations
Magazines/
journal articles
57.5
20
40
60
80
100
Percent
Figure 30. How much do you trust the following sources in making land management decisions (landowners)?
Grand River Grasslands — 15
29.9
Exchange information
or ideas
55.8
14.3
22.4
Fencing
agreements
10.5
14.3
Lease land to
each other
Occasionally
Never
29.9
55.8
12.0
Hunt/fish on each
other's land
54.7
33.3
Share equipment
or supplies
10.5
Help each other
work livestock
10.3
67.1
22.4
51.3
38.5
9.3
Managing deer or
other wildlife
40.0
6.8
Help each other
plant/harvest crops
15.8
2.6
Conduct burns
together
50.7
47.3
45.9
3.9
Join in business
partnerships
Frequently
67.1
80.3
9.2
88.2
0
20
40
60
Percent
80
100
Figure 31. How often have you worked with neighbors in the following ways (landowners)?
Exchange information
or ideas
43.9
46.3
9.8
23.8
Hunt/fish on each
other's land
23.8
14.3
Managing deer or
other wildlife
Help each other
work livestock
12.2
Share equipment
or supplies
11.9
Frequently
52.4
Occasionally
Never
23.8
61.9
53.7
34.1
64.3
23.8
10.0
Fencing
agreements
57.5
32.5
7.3
Lease land to
each other
19.5
73.2
4.9
Help each other
plant/harvest crops
43.9
Join in business
partnerships
2.4
Conduct burns
together
2.4
0
51.2
14.6
82.9
26.8
20
70.7
40
Percent
60
80
Figure 32. How often have you worked with neighbors in the following ways (community leaders)?
16 — Grand River Grasslands
100
Being a good
4.7
4.7
2.3
steward of the land
Leaving land for
future generations
0.0
34.9
55.8
4.7
4.7
34.9
Quietly enjoying
7.0
my land
Maintaining family
farming tradition
9.3
9.5
Livestock
41.9
14.0
2.3
0.0
14.0
16.3
Extremely important
32.6
27.9
Very important
No opinion
28.6
7.1
50.0
19.5
7.3
0.0
61.0
12.2
19.0
7.1
Row crops
Not important
14.3
14.3
2.4
Forage
Somewhat important
47.6
26.2
Income from
agriculture
51.2
37.2
47.6
16.7
9.5
18.6
Conserving land for
future income
65.1
7.0
9.3
0.0
16.3
Property
values
2.3
9.3
55.8
16.3
16.3
Protecting prairies/
39.5
11.6
grasslands
0.0
32.6
16.3
9.3
Recreation
9.3
9.8
Forestry
18.6
17.1
5.0
14.6
Income from
government programs
17.5
15.0
0
46.5
20
29.3
29.3
27.5
35.0
40
60
80
100
Percent
Figure 33. How important to you are each of the following uses of local prairies and grasslands (community
leaders)?
Grand River Grasslands — 17
Landowners and community leaders belong
to a variety of community and commodity
organizations. Thirty-nine percent of landowner
are involved with Farm Bureau, 38 percent
belong to a farmer coop, and 12 percent are
part of the Iowa Cattlemen’s Association.
Landowners are also connected with groups
interested in the environment (12 percent The
Nature Conservancy, 10 percent Ducks Unlimited,
11 percent Pheasants Forever) as well as their
community (29 percent involved in church, 8
percent in service or fraternal organizations, and
6 percent volunteer fire department). Community
leaders report similar patterns of organizational
membership with 36 percent belonging to Farm
Bureau, 24 percent farmer co-op, 16 percent Iowa
Cattlemen’s Association, and 11 percent Soybean
Association. Community leaders’ environmental
organizational membership range from Pheasants
Forever (24 percent), Ducks Unlimited (16
percent), Trees Forever (13 percent) to The
Nature Conservancy (11 percent) and Iowa Prairie
Network (7 percent). Community organizations
that local leaders are involved in include church
(38 percent), civic/political groups (18 percent),
service/fraternal organizations (18 percent),
recreational groups (16 percent) and volunteer fire
department (7 percent).
VALUING GRASSLANDS
Community leaders were asked to rate the
importance of various uses of local grasslands
and prairies. Figure 33 shows that being a good
steward of the land is rated as the most important
consideration for community leaders, with 51.2
percent stating this is extremely important to them
and 88.4 percent stating it is either very important
or extremely important. Other issues that rank
highest among respondents as either very
important or extremely important are leaving land
for future generations (90.7 percent), conserving
land for future income (83.7 percent), forage
(80.5 percent), and quietly enjoying my land (76.8
percent). Livestock is rated either very important
100
Extremely abundant
Moderately abundant
Found occasionally
73.7
80
Rare
59.0
Not present
Tall
fescue
Red
cedar
30.8
30.8
Other trees/
forest
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
2.6
Open pasture/
grassland
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0
0.0
7.9
20
13.2
15.4
23.1
26.3
23.7
31.6
28.9
40
38.5
39.5
47.4
Percent
60
Oak
savanna
Figure 34. Estimate the current abundance of each plant cover on the prairies/grasslands near where you live
(community leaders)
18 — Grand River Grasslands
100
Extremely important
Very important
No opinion
Somewhat important
Not important
80
Wildflowers/
native plants
40.5
21.4
3.6
4.8
13.1
10.7
11.9
10.7
14.3
16.7
Butterflies
20.2
29.8
33.3
23.8
28.0
5.9
2.4
0.0
Pheasant,
quail, turkey
7.3
11.8
13.4
18.3
17.6
20
0
18.8
25.9
27.1
40
32.9
36.5
45.2
Percent
54.1
60
Songbirds
Prairie
chickens
Deer
Figure 35. How important is it to you to have the following on your land (landowners)?
100
Extremely important
Very important
80
No opinion
Somewhat important
Not important
25.6
27.9
25.6
26.7
28.9
9.3
11.6
13.3
11.1
11.4
20.0
27.3
15.9
15.9
4.4
8.9
11.4
9.1
11.4
9.1
20
17.8
20.5
26.7
27.3
31.8
27.3
25.0
27.3
40
29.5
42.2
Percent
60
0
Songbirds
Wildflowers/
native plants
Pheasant,
quail, turkey
Butterflies
Prairie
chickens
Deer
Figure 36. How important is it to you to have the following on your land (community leaders)?
Grand River Grasslands — 19
Landowners and community leaders were asked
how important it is to have various wildlife
and plant species nearby. Figure 35 shows that
pheasant, quail, and turkey are the most important
species to landowners in this area, with 80
percent stating that it is either very important
or extremely important to have them on their
land. Next in importance are the presence of
songbirds (61.9 percent), wildflowers/native
plants (55.3 percent), and then deer (53.6 percent)
as being very important or extremely important
to landowners. Prairie chickens are ranked as
either very important or extremely important by
the smallest percentage of respondents (47.6
percent), although deer are the species ranked
‘not important’ by the largest percentage of
respondents (20.2 percent).
20 — Grand River Grasslands
Landowners
Community leaders
0
Extremely
important
Very
important
No
opinion
Somewhat
important
7.1
9.8
26.2
22.0
4.8
16.7
20
17.1
40
45.2
35.4
60
15.9
Percent
80
Not
important
Figure 37. How important is restoring grasslands and
prairies to you?
100
Landowners
Community leaders
61.9
80
37.3
40
48.2
60
26.2
Percent
Extremely
important
Very
important
Somewhat
important
0.0
7.1
4.8
No
opinion
0.0
0
7.2
20
7.2
Figure 34 shows the estimated current abundance
of each plant cover type on prairies/grasslands
near where community leaders live. Open
pasture/grassland is rated by 92.1 percent as
extremely abundant (23.1 percent) or moderately
abundant (59 percent). Over 68 percent rate tall
fescue as extremely abundant (28.9 percent)
or moderately abundant (39.5 percent). Red
cedar is rated as significantly more abundant
by community leaders than landowners, with
23.7 percent of community leaders stating it
is extremely abundant compared to only 2.8
percent of landowners (see Figure 13). Red
cedar is considered moderately abundant by 47.4
percent of community respondents, and found
occasionally by 26.3 percent. Other types of trees
and forest are estimated as moderately abundant
by 73.7 percent, while oak savanna is considered
moderately abundant by 30.8 percent, found
occasionally by 38.5 percent, and rare by 30.8
percent of community leaders.
100
Not
important
Figure 38. How important is controlling invasive plants
to you?
100
80
Percent
or extremely important to 76.2 percent, while
protecting prairies/grasslands is rated either very
important or extremely important to 55.8 percent
of community leaders. The categories that are
rated least important are forestry and income from
government programs.
60
40
27.9
27.9
32.6
20
0
9.3
2.3
1
Most people do not
value protecting local
prairies/grasslands
2
3
Most people have no
opinion about
protecting local
prairies/grasslands
4
5
Most people do value
protecting local
prairies/grasslands
Figure 39. To what extent do you think people in your
community value protecting their local prairies/grasslands (community leaders)?
3.7%
Responses by community leaders are displayed
66.7% in Figure 36, with pheasant, quail, and turkey
once again the most important species, with 60
percent stating that it is either very important or
extremely important to have them on their land.
Next in importance are the presence of songbirds
22.2%
and wildflowers/native plants (both 52.3 percent),
51.9%
followed by butterflies (45.4 percent) and then
Attend workshop on restoring prairies/grasslands
No activities
deer (34.9 percent), as being either very important
Other
Help local landowners conduct prescribed burns
or extremely important to have on their land.
Assist with a prairie-related youth project
Figure 40. What types of activities would you be willing Once again, prairie chickens are ranked as
either very important or extremely important by
to engage in to promote prairie/grassland restoration
(community leaders)?
the smallest percentage of respondents (31.1
percent), although deer are the species ranked
‘not important’ by the largest percentage of
respondents (25.6 percent).
40.0%
9.3%
14.0%
32.6%
16.3%
27.9%
Extremely interested
Somewhat interested
No opinion
Somewhat uninterested
Very uninterested
Figure 41. How interested would you be in participating in a community project to protect local prairies/
grasslands (community leaders)?
100
Landowners
Community leaders
39.0
33.3
7.3
22.0
19.8
20
17.3
40
31.7
60
29.6
Percent
80
0
Very
interested
Somewhat
interested
No
Don’t
know
Figure 42. Would you be interested in attending a prescribed burning demonstration or farm tour?
To determine how much the people in the Grand
River Grasslands value restoring grasslands
and prairies, the survey asked them to rank
how important this issue is to them. Responses
between landowners and community leaders are
displayed in Figure 37; with more community
leaders (61.9 percent) stating this is either very
important or extremely important to them as
compared to landowners (51.3 percent). More
landowners also say that restoring grasslands/
prairies is ‘not important’ to them (9.8 percent), as
compared to community leaders (7.1 percent).
The survey also asked landowners and
community leaders how important it is to them
to control invasive plants, with their responses
shown in Figure 38. Overall, this issue is much
more important to respondents than restoring
grasslands and prairies (Figure 37); with 88.1
percent of community leaders and 85.5 percent
of landowners feeling that controlling invasive
species is either very important or extremely
important to them. None of the respondents
claimed that this issue is ‘not important’ to them.
Community leaders were asked how much
they thought people in their community value
protecting local prairies and grasslands (Figure
39). The percentage of community leaders who
feel that most locals have no opinion on the
Grand River Grasslands — 21
issue is 27.9 percent, while 9.3 percent think that
most people in the area do value protecting local
prairies, and 2.3 percent think that most people in
the area do not value protecting them.
Community leaders were also asked what types
of activities they would be willing to engage
in to promote prairie and grassland restoration.
Figure 40 shows that 66.7 percent would attend a
restoration workshop, 51.9 percent would assist
with a prairie-related youth project, 22.2 percent
would help local landowners conduct prescribed
burns, and 40 percent are not willing to do any
activities. They were further asked how interested
they would be in participating in a community
project to protect local prairies/grasslands (Figure
41), with 9.3 percent stating they are extremely
interested and 32.6 percent somewhat interested.
Nearly 28 percent have no opinion, 16.3 percent
are somewhat uninterested, and 14 percent are
very uninterested.
In order to determine how much local interest
there is in learning more about the use of fire
as a land management tool, the survey asked
landowners and community leaders how
interested they would be in attending a prescribed
burning demonstration or farm tour. Figure
42 shows that 46.9 percent of landowners and
53.7 percent of community leaders were either
somewhat interested or very interested, while
33.3 percent of landowners and 39 percent of
community leaders were not interested. A large
percentage of landowners (19.8 percent) did not
know if they would be interested in attending a
burning demonstration or farm tour.
A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
The research of the ISU project, Restoring
Grassland, Grazing, and Wildlife in
Southern Iowa, arises from the realization that
North American prairies evolved with both fire
and grazing. Further a viable grazing industry and
wildlife populations both rely on appropriately
managed expansive grassland landscapes. We are
testing a management model called patch-burn
22 — Grand River Grasslands
grazing that combines grazing and burning into a
rotational grazing system without fences. Patchburn grazing is being compared to grazing with
no fire (traditional management on ranches) and
to fire without grazing (traditional management
on preserves). Our research focuses on assessing
patterns of livestock grazing and the disturbance
pattern created by patch-burn grazing. We are
examining cattle selectivity for forage species,
cattle performance, and the associated responses
of insects, songbirds, and native prairie plants.
In order to develop strategies and tools that
protect the grasslands and assure a productive
landscape, it is important to understand how
local landowners and community residents use,
perceive, and value their grassland environment.
Research on the effects of grazing management
and prescribed burning and how they can be used
to promote a viable cattle grazing industry, while
enhancing unique prairie landscape for wildlife
and recreation, is an emerging science. The
findings of this survey offer insights as to how
landowners and community residents can work
with scientists and natural resource specialists to
co-manage this valuable resource. We encourage
the Grand River Grasslands community to talk
with neighbors and friends about these findings
and what they might mean. These discussions
have the potential to help the community develop
a vision and a set of activities that support
environmental, agricultural, and recreational
goals.
Conservation benefits could include restoring the
biodiversity of native Iowa and Missouri tallgrass
prairie, including viable populations of rare prairie
plants, insects, and vertebrates. Economic benefits
are the potential for a strong grass-based livestock
industry. Our long-term vision for this work is to
influence management on several million acres
in southern Iowa and northern Missouri with the
ultimate goal of benefiting the local the economy
and quality of life of communities in the region.
. . . and justice for all
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender,
religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Many materials
can be made available in alternative formats for ADA clients. To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,
Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964.
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Jack M.
Payne, director, Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.