Dennis sez:
>I have a funny feeling that there's
>not really any "beneficial" reason for cows to be on the landscape other
>than to feed human beans.

There have been discussions pro-and-con on, for instance Sauvie
Island. Removal of cows has caused intrusion of willows into
mudflats that are used by shorebirds. Mechanical control is
expensive or at least time-consuming (can you lend us Stuart?).

Focused and closely monitored grazing by cows may be cheaper.

Of course, the notion would not be to maintain the natural
progression but to counter that fact that good shorebird
habitat is increasingly rare, more rare than young willow
stands in W OR, and that Sauvie Island is a significant
stopover point for shorebirds.

I know there are places in England where cows are used
similarly, lands held by the Wildlife Trust I believe.
They're used as mowing machines for certain types of
habitat. Real mowing machines perhaps could be used,
but would cost more, I believe is the motivation.

My point isn't so much whether or not such use would make sense,
(I'm no expert), but that the political problem is so involved that
even raising the possibility that such use of cows be considered
is risky.

Jon Anderson, I believe, had interesting things to say
about this when we exchanged some e-mail awhile back.
I think it was him, anyway...

And goats will eat Himilayan blackberries, after all...

There is no reason for cows to be in sage steppe, though.
Nor native prairie in the midwest.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>