Maureen Ellis:
>But, perhaps, a wet
>lush environment like Nisqually does "benefit" from well-managed grazing.
>What grazed there before the cows?

The problem centers around who gets to define the phrase "well-managed".

Livestock interests define it as "greatest volume of beef production
possible."

Typically, we see the livestock tail wagging the refuge horse, and
therein lies the problem.

We had a similar discussion about a year ago, and my views haven't
changed: the problem political, and in many ways it is easier from
a political point of view to simply oppose grazing than to work towards
a beneficial regime for those areas where grazing might be useful.

If conservation interests state "a few well-disciplined cows at
Nisqually are a good thing", you can bet your life that this will
get twisted into Wise Use hyperbole stating that "conservationists
admit cows are a good thing so we should have 1,000 on the Malheur
refuge".

The problem isn't so much the cows, it is the political power of
cowboys. Just take a look at the (delayed, but not dead) plan
to pass legislation making the primary use of BLM land cattle
grazing, with all other use - recreation, habitat, etc - subordinate
and allowed only if it does not reduce the number of cows on the
range.

As long as conservationists have to fight battles like this one,
you can bet there won't be much energy left over to work with
grazing interests on developing grazing as a useful management
tool in those areas where it might be appropriate.

That political power must be broken first, I'm afraid.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, more at http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza