>We don't manage wildlife, we manage people. Left alone, most wildlife
>will manage quite well, thank you.

That doesn't stop us from managing it, though. Do you believe
we take a hands-off approach? Growing grain in the Willamette
valley is intervention, etc etc etc.

> On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Don Baccus wrote:
>
> > 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?).

> It wasn't the removal of COWS, but the removal of vegetation MANAGEMENT
> that allowed natural succession to proceed.

I'll have to differ. Any benefit of grazing beforehand was purely
accidental. This doesn't meet my definition of vegetation
management. I was pointing out, of course, that cows could be
used for vegetation management (potentially), but that political
problems make such use difficult.

> > 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.
>
> Don, you're not advocating for a natural system, but for a managed
> system :-)

Of course I am! Where did I say that would be a natural system?
The large-scale impacts of human development on the landscape
makes such management imperative in many cases.


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

> Oh, Lord, protect us from the goatherds! Don, I think you'll find more
> instances of ecological type modification throughout the world that is
> caused by goats than is caused by bovines.

No doubt. But I've had friends get rid of blackberries in this
fashion, and as far as I know they've not accidently established
a feral population. This is different than grazing a herd of
goats in an indiscriminant fashion.

And, besides, I meant it sort of as a joke.

> > There is no reason for cows to be in sage steppe, though.

> Sagebrush steppe...?? I just came across Hart Mtn Nat Antelope Refuge,
> where the cows have been removed for a few years. After 125 years of
> grazing, the range looked pretty darned good to me. The areas that
> needed the protection, I understand, were the riparian zones along Rock
> Creek, etc. Adequate streamside fencing (expensive and time-consuming, but
> Oh so effective) seems to be anathema to ranchers, to managers, and to
> the city folks who want to see the 'wide open range'.

First, "pretty darned good" doesn't mean it's optimal. Cattle grazing
does increase the proportion of woody shrubs like greasewood and
sage vs bunchgrass, that's been well established. So does fire
supression. There are, of course, big chunks of Hart Mountain
that have only seen relatively light grazing due to water. And
there've been some decent-sized fires in the last decade or so
that have left portions of it looking pretty darned good.

Cattle grazing on Hart Mountain may actually impact sage grouse,
a declining species (said decline which seems to be correlated
to grazing impact), more than pronghorn. I do know sage grouse
are a consideration in the plan. I do know that many in the
wildlife biology community down here in Oregon believe that
grazing impact is a major reason for decline of this species,
and that there's published work to back it up. PAS funded
the writing of a research report summarizing the published
work on this topic as part of our effort to gather information
to help guide our position on various eastside management
issues.

There was a lot of studying done on Hart before the cows were
removed. While I'm not aware of the detailed findings, I know
that the decision wasn't taken lightly and it wasn't due to
city folks wanting to see the 'wide open range'. If you feel
the decision was incorrect, why not read the rationale and
give us a rebuttal?

Conservationists have fought for streamside fencing for years,
BTW, even us city folk conservationists, so I'm not sure why
you feel we don't like it. Most of us aren't in the habit
of fighting for things we dislike.

Ranchers do fight it, though, and are still claiming that
streamside grazing is "good for the land". Don't believe
me? Go back to Harney County and spend some time in Burns
rather than on Steens or Hart.

> And as far as cows are concerned, I remember lots of Western Meadowlarks,
> Savannah Sparrows, Killdeer, and even some Horned Larks nesting in the
> cattle and horse pastures SE of Albany, Oregon. Mallards nesting along
> the creek. Red-tails in the cottonwoods and Barn Owls in the barns.
> There aren't too many of these birds left, now, since the place was sub-
> divided and three (3) malls have gone in....

I can't imagine anyone arguing that urban development improves
habitat. This does not serve, however, as an argument that cows
do (don't start arguing logic with an old computer freak, Jon).

> Our problem isn't cows, it's people.

Since cows are one of the things that came here with people, it
amounts to the same thing, doesn't it?

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