Rangelands 6(5), October 1984
221
The Importance of Rangeland and Range Conservation
TestimonyPresented to the
Republican National Committeeon Agriculture
Dallas, Texas • August 13, 1984
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Dr.
Joseph L. Schuster, President,Society for Range Management (SRM).The SocietyforRangeManagementis a professional organization comprised of individuals with acommon
interestinthestudy, management,and rational useofrangelandsand relatedecosystems.The subsequenttestimony on
the importance of rangelands and range conservation as a
national issue is presented at the request of Senator Roger
Jepsen.As representativeofthe Society for RangeManagement, Iwill presentseveralkey pointsforyourconsideration
and amplify each with my rationale.
ratherthan economicpenaltiestorange conservationefforts
by privateoperators.
In order to meet future needs of water, food, fiber and
recreation; rangelands and range conservation should not
only become a USDA prioritybut a National priority.
Itis Essential To The Future Welfare Of The Nation That
TheNational Commitment To Rangeiand ResourcesManagementAnd ConservationBe increased Reiatlve To Other
3.
Natural ResourcePrograms
Rangeland is a unique land resource relative to cropland
and forestland. It furnishes both agricultural products and
essential natural resources such as water, wildlife and
recreation. This uniqueness should be realized when programs are directed toward range conservation. This has not
been done in the past and range has suffered from lack of
recognition and programdevelopment.Consequently,range
has not received the resourcesand program recognition it
1. TheRangelandsof theUnited StatesAre A Vital National
ResourceThat MustBe ConservedFor the Future
The 853 million acres of rangeland represent 38%of our
nation's land base while an additional 362 million acres of
forest, cropland and pastureland are used as range by livestock and wildlife.Rangeland is theforage basefor most of
thewestern livestock industry, but just as importantly it pro- deserves.
Evidence:
vides wildlifehabitat, recreationalopportunities, and off-site
a. Therange managementeffortinthe U.S. ForestSerwater formillionsofAmericans. Much ofournation's energy
vice (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management(BLM)
and mineral reserves are found under rangeland.Thus, it is a
has declined drastically in recent years while those in
vital national resource with many economic and social
benefits. In fact, Rangeland is the resource for the future
forestry, wildlife, and recreationhave receivedsubstanwhen itwill becomemoreand more important forfood, fiber,
tial increases.
recreation, and water. By the year 2030the U.S. population
b. Range received only slight consideration in the
willexceed300million. Nonetheless,the nation'srangelands
ResourcesPlanning Act (RPA) Alternative Goals 1985
willhaveshrunk by an estimated 67 million acresbecauseof
Program (e.g., livestock grazing was not treated as an
land use changesto industrial, cropland, and built-up areas.
opportunity area as were timber, wildlife, and recreWiththe shrinking baseand the intensification oftheir use it
ation).
isimperativethatthisnation conserveour rangelandsforthe
c. Most soil and water conservation programs are
future.
orientedtowardcroplands.The USDASecretary'sMem2. ThereisA PressingNeedTo TransmitPublic ConcernFor
orandum 9500-5,dated 15 December1983, implies that
Soil And Water Conservation On Rangeland Into National
rangeland will be put on par with the rest of American
Policy
agriculture. It is evident that this has not been done
We must have a greaternational commitment to both soil
becauseof the thrust of present conservation policy
and water conservation on rangeland. This concern has
and reduction in range conservation efforts. Manpower
become evident in recentyears, and thereisa pressingneed
and funding commitments to range in both USDA and
to transmit public concern for conservation of our natural
USD1 continue to decline in relation to other natural
resourcesinto national policy.
resources. The Range Research Act (Sub Title M of
Our soil and water resourcesare our nation's wealth. It is
1981 Farm Bill) hasnever beenfunded, and the Renewthestrength ofour nation, and its conservationisthe responableResourcesExtensionActof 1978has receivedminimal funding and then onlythroughtheeffortsof Consibility of the landowner (publicor private). We as a nation
must realize that there is a cost for the conservation. The
gress. Its formula forfunding allocations to disciplines
public must realize that the operator is not the only benefislights range.
ciary of rangeland conservation practices. The enhanced
d. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has placed
environmentalqualityresulting fromconservation isgenermajor emphasison "conservation tillage"on cropland,
ally an off-site publicbenefit. Therefore,as anation, we must
but there is no comparable effort in conservation for
bewillingto helpthelanduserapplylong-term conservation
rangeland. I propose a "conservation management"
treatments. TheAdministration should consider tax incenmovement for rangelands.
tives for conservation practices; long-term, low-interest
e. Except for special studies, thereis no adequateway
loans for conservation treatments;and direct cash outgo in
to identify range inputs and products within USDA.
USDA programs toward range conservation. The USDA
must adopt policies that will provide economic incentives
Rangelands 6(5), October 1984
222
Within the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), range
is mixed with pasture and forage research.Within the
FS, range is lumped with wildlifeand fisheries. Within
the Cooperative Research Service Inventory System,
range is combined with several otheractivities rather
than as a resource commodity (as forestry is treated).
Theseand otherreasonsindicate that range and rangelands
should have separate identityin USDAand be treated as a
land resourcewith several commodities and uses.
receivedtheir share of the conservation effort. The Special
AreasConservationProgramofthe SCS,by usingerosion as
the sole criterion and the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE)as the major measure of erosion, heavilyfavors "targeting" toward cropland. Theresult is continued rangeland
degradation and a declining effort in range conservation
becauseof migration of funds and manpower to predominantly cropland regions.
6. The Rangelands Of The United States Are A Primary
Source Of increased Water Supply
The 853 millionacres of rangeland are a vast watershed,
and although much of it is in the semi-arid west, it provides
significant water for municipal and agricultural uses. It has
the potential to provide even more. A 1983report issued by
and
erosion.
34%
of
the
the Office of Technology Assessmentcautions Congress
mismanagement,overgrazing,
Only
U.S. rangelands are in good or better condition. Ranges in that brush encroachment on the nation's rangeland poses a
fair condition constitute 45%, while 16% are rated poor. major threat to long-term productivity. Excessive brush is
Rangesin fair condition are providing goods and services at also reducing our nation's water supply. Improvement of
less than halftheir ecological potential while those in poor range condition not only enhances on-site water use by
condition are producing at less than 25% of their potential. plants but reduces soil erosion, and increasesoff-site water
Rangelandsin these lower condition classesare much more qualityand yield. Noxious brush and weeds now infest 350
susceptibleto erosionand drought than those ingood condi- million acresof privately owned rangeland.A50%reduction
tion. With the considerable amount of additional pressure ofthese noxious plant infestationswould make 12.2 quadrilthat will be placed on American rangelands by recreation- lion gallons of water availableeach year for otheruses.
ists, hunters, and demands for increased water yield in the
next two decades it is essential that range research and 7. The Criteria Used To Determine Cost-Effectiveness Of
ConservationPracticesShould ConslderAil Benefits,
rangetechnical assistancebeaccelerated.We cannot afford Range
Not
Just
Increased Livestock Production
furtherrange deterioration. Theproductive potential of our
We
that USDA recognize that benefits of range conurge
nation's rangelands must be maintained where it has not
servation
accrue to the public as well as the land
practices
deteriorated and enhancedwhere it has.To accomplishthis,
owner. Increased grazing is not the only value derived. In
conservation
must
become
a
of
the
total
U.S.
range
truly
part
addition to increased
production range improveagricultural commitment. It must receive resource alloca- ments: enhance fish forage
and
wildlife
(1)
habitat; (2) enhancethe
tionsin proportion to its valueto the nation.
recreational opportunities; (3) enhance water conservation
5. Federal Soil ConservationAnd Range ManagementPro- on-site and both quality and quantity off-site; (4) reduce
grams Need To Be Redirected To Stop The Diversion Of flood damages;and (5) reduce siltation and sedimentation
FederalAssistanceFrom RangeAndRelatedGrazing Lands. downstream.All are for the social good, and all should be
TheSRM lauds the priorities setby the National Program considered whenevaluating the benefits of range conservaofSoil andWaterConservation (NCP).Reduction of erosion tion practices. The Economic Research Service should be
and conservation of water are vital to this nation's welfare. tasked to support range products research.
We are concerned, however, that rangelands have not
4. DevelopmentAnd ApplicationOf NewRange Conservation Technology Is Imperative If RangelandsAre To Meet
The IncreasedDemandsOf AnAffluentPopulation
Over half therangelandsofthe U.S. areseriously degraded
and suffer reduced productivity caused by ill effects of past
VIEWPOINT:
Use of USLE on Rangelands
Kenneth G. Renard
The transmittal letter of SAM President J.L. Schuster
Having read the SRM positionstatements in Rangelarids
. . the
6(3):139-140,I was pleased to see that SRM is involved in states, 'Until technology is developed to replace
stands
on
issues
feel
affect
the
Not
USLE
as
on
and
and
inapplicable
rangelands,
adopt
proven
taking
they
membership.
being familar with Coastal Marsh problems, I cannot com- acceptable techniques for evaluating vegetation as a more
ment on that portionof the position statement. Thediscus- accurate and earlier indication of degradation of the total
sion of USLE containsa number of errors and misconcep- rarigeland resource." It is a foregone conclusion that the
tions which I feel have done a great deal of harm to those USLEwas never intended to assess anything otherthan the
concerned with stewardship of the soil resourcesof range- erosionthatwould beexpected over a long periodasaresult
land.
of the process of water erosion. Perhaps that is where the
problem lies. Is this technology being used to assess water
The author Is national technical advisor, Erosion, Sedimentationand Soil
supply, water quality, wildlife, plant resources, etc.? If so I
Productivity, USDA-ARS, Tucson, Ariz.
The author is indebted to D.A. Farrell, GA. Foster, c.w. Johnson, D.A.
can'timaginehow. ARS scientists are attemptingto develop
Woolhiser,and JR. Wight fortheirsuggestionsand comments
the
it.
paper.
concerning