On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, brian sharp wrote:
> In fact there are lots of reasons not (to graze)--(eastside habitats)
> never even evolved under grazing pressure from large, heavy, herding
> herbivores.

Brian is absolutely right. In eastern Washington, for example, many
people think "Well the cows just replace the native grazing animals",
assuming buffalo were there. That of course is *totally wrong*. The
Columbia Basin had been ungrazed by *any* ungulates for milennia until the
arrival of horses in 1730 (Daubenmire 1970 - Steppe vegetation of
Washington). Prior to that, the last ungulates were probably early forms
of bison, antelope, and perhaps some mastodons prior to the last
glaciation, about 12,000 years ago. Warming events caused the local
extinction of these critters (I suppose if that hadn't done it, the sudden
inundation of water probably would've!). The point is, from approximately
12,000 years ago to 1730, there were no grazing ungulates in the Columbia
Basin. Cows got here in 1834, sheep in 1860, and by 1900 severe
overgrazing had denuded most of the shrub-steppe vegetation in the state.
In fact, that period (around 1900) was probably the lowest point for range
condition, having improved since then (see Daubenmire, or Franklin and
Dyerness 1988 - Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington).

The obvious question then is this:

How could any ecosystem which evolved for 12 milennia without grazing
ungulates possibly benefit by introducing them?

And follows: Then why should the NWR system, which has a role of
preserving native wildlife, allow grazing to continue in these areas?

And for a more local controversy: How could grazing help the survival of
Pygmy Rabbits, considering the rabbits co-evolved with their sagebrush
habitat, as certain WDFW biologists maintain?

-------------
Michael R. Smith
Univ. of Washington, Seattle
whimbrel at u.washington.edu
http://salmo.cqs.washington.edu/~wagap/mike.html