First, increased intensity of rangeland use and man- 

 agement must look ahiead to declining inflation, 

 increasing real growtti in thie national economy, and 

 more competition for available resources. Tighit 

 money forces both government and the range grazing 

 industry into application of cost-effective practices. 

 Unfortunately much remains to be learned and under- 

 stood in this area. The costs and returns to produce 

 an AUM of grazing can be reasonably determined, but 

 the costs and benefits of a visitor day, the value of 

 one more deer, or an acre-foot of quality water are 

 less readily determined When these multiple 

 resources are considered in trade-offs with each 

 other, it often seems that little gets done to enhance 

 the total value of the resources Although of unques- 

 tionable value, the preparation of environmental impact 

 statements on rangeland use and management have 

 also drained funds away from managing the 

 resources. Governmental support funds have 

 decreased and ranchers are in a situation where pro- 

 duction costs increase faster than prices of livestock 

 products There is no question that people have suf- 

 fered, but so has the land resource improvement pro- 

 gram. It is time for action to increase the real 

 productivity of rangelands. 



My second point is that expensive energy will 

 encourage more effective grazing management of the 

 nation's rangelands It is well established that the 

 land used for cultivated pastures is being converted to 

 crop production and the remainder receives less fertil- 

 izer and irrigation than formerly, hence a lower grazing 

 capacity than a few years back High land and pro- 

 duction costs, mostly energy and equipment, force 

 cultivatable land to be used for the crops of greatest 

 income. Fossil energy in the beef production system 

 primarily produces feed to be fed mechanically to live- 

 stock through the use of farm and feedlot equipment. 

 The production of rangeland forage uses less fossil 

 energy than any other type of animal production and 

 takes place on land unsuitable for crops Ruminant 

 animals convert low value rangeland forages into high 

 quality human foods Therefore, an increasing com- 

 petitive advantage of rangeland grazing versus other 

 forages is predicted. This will require more intensive 

 land management and animal husbandry than decades 

 of teaching and preaching have accomplished in the 

 past. If this prediction comes true, much research 

 and organization of knowledge are needed to attain 

 low energy costs and profitable food production from 

 rangeland. 



The third point is the need for mitigation of the 

 impacts of local people when public decisions result in 

 net gain for the public as a whole. This principle, 



when applied to the shifts in uses of rangeland, states 

 that the gainers can compensate the losers and still 

 be better off. An example of this problem is illus- 

 trated by the gains to the public and the losses of 

 livestock when control of predators was restricted. 

 Another recent example is the controversy over jack- 

 rabbit control to reduce damage to crops and range 

 vegetation Most everyone accepts the principle of 

 equity, but few agree who should pay how much to 

 whom and often disagreements occur over who has 

 the rights in the first place. This issue should be 

 decided based on comparative valuation of forage for 

 livestock, water used off site, wildlife, and recreational 

 experiences. Such a mixture of values cannot as yet 

 be precisely determined or fairly compared. These 

 complex pricing problems require the best of research 

 from the biological and social scientist, a spirit of 

 compromise from the users, and full exposure in politi- 

 cal discussion. The nation's political bodies have a 

 high stake in these controversies through passage of 

 laws and regulations, and support of management and 

 research dealing with complex mixes of land 

 ownership. 



Lastly, I want further to emphasize the needs for 

 rangeland research Since 1976, 15 different docu- 

 ments that recommend research priorities for range- 

 land problems have come to my attention One has 

 only to examine an environmental impact statement to 

 realize that our knowledge is inadequate to prepare 

 for the kinds of problems currently faced by rangeland 

 managers. People demanding use of rangeland 

 resources have increased in numbers, but the bulge in 

 rangeland research following Sputnik has tapered off. 

 For example, the number of scientist years devoted to 

 forestry, range, wildlife and water research in Califor- 

 nia was 143 in 1958, 205 in 1968, and 155 in 1977. 

 It is still less today The cost per scientist year has 

 doubled since 1958. There is less land, less water, 

 less energy, and less food on this earth for each of 

 us than just a year ago The current federal budget 

 further reduces our ability to produce food at some 

 later date by restricting research support now 



The environmental syndrome, above all, has 

 increased the unknown part of our knowledge store- 

 house because it asks for information we don't have. 

 Oversimplified, it is as fundamental as changing the 

 emphasis from research making the cow more pro- 

 ductive to research also finding how the cow can be 

 used to make the whole rangeland more productive. 

 Much remains to be done to make rangeland produce 

 the food that it can and the amenities that it also can 

 provide. 



58 



