Steve Herman wrote: Another diatribe against cattle grazing... =20

>>If these efforts and this kind of energy were directed to habitat=20
acquisition and protection, much more conservation of a more meaningful=20
variety would be accomplished. For example, posts from me and others =
about=20
the loss of Sagebrush Flat to the politics of abysmal science and cowboy =

worship elicited virtually no response from Tweeters...

Steve, perhaps that is because the responses that *have* been posted on =
Tweeters regarding this subject have been rational explanations of the =
considerations and decisions of the land managers. =20

"Abysmal Science" is a subjective label that I notice is often used =
against managers by those in the Ivory Towers of Academia. Pure =
Research, of course, is unsullied by those icky, pragmatic, logistical =
and social considerations, can afford 99% confidence limits, and doesn't =
have to answer the phone calls from the public... :-)


>>Is it more important to wildlife to save 4 square miles of the last =
good hunk of=20
deep-soiled Shrubsteppe harboring some very interesting bird species and =

populations, AND the only viable population of the *state endangered*=20
Pygmy Rabbit, or put a few doomed pelagic birds through the Kenmore? =20

(Huh? Are we mixing hyperboles? Or is this just an artifact of the =
anti-cow and anti-Government-Manager message being appended to the =
seabird rehabilitation thread?)

>>Sagebrush Flat is in the process of being turned over to the =
Washington=20
Department of Fish & Wildlife by the Department of Natural Resources =
with=20
no significant change in the amount of abusive grazing. =20

Steve, if the grazing pressure on this piece of land is so "abusive" and =
deleterious to the species, could you please explain why this piece of =
land harbors the best population of these critters in the State? For =
that matter, since you tend to view the grazing throughout the PNW as =
abusive, constantly managed without regard for anything but cows, etc., =
etc. -- why do these gentle lagomorphic creatures survive *at all* =
following a century of grazing that makes the land in the 1990s seem =
de-populated by bovines in comparison? Thank heavens this ground hasn't =
been converted to farmed fields by now, as that would have surely =
eliminated the rabbits.

I might cordially suggest that "Abysmal science" is not always the =
result of poor study design and inadequate statistical comparisons. =
Sometimes it is the result of having made one's determination of the =
"facts" before any data are gathered. This characteristic is roundly =
condemned by most of us when a "biostitute" for a mega-corporation comes =
before the public hearing with charts and diagrams and arguements to =
develop our favorite wetland or build the third runway in our backyard, =
yet we seem to condone it when it suits our particular viewpoint and =
it's "for the wildlife". I don't understand how either situation is =
ethically defensible.

When we have made up our minds long before we see the data (or the study =
plan for that matter), we are likely to denounce every piece of =
information that does not support our pre-conceived views. I find =
myself constantly having to check my own feelings against the facts that =
come before me - to separate my emotional attachment to an issue from =
the reality of what might be going on on the land or in the water.

>>In fact, the grazing (by privately owned cattle) has at least the =
option to be=20
increased! And all this is to be done with the transfer of (probably) a =

near three quarters of a million dollars. The F&W folks will "do=20
research" to determine if cattle are harmful to Pygmy Rabbits! What do=20
you think? Will a bunch of 2000 pound exotic ungulates that compete =
with=20
all wildlife on the site for food, and might just collapse burrows of =
the=20
only native fossorial rabbit in North America have a negative or a=20
positive effect on the habitat and its occupants? That research=20
"question" was answered in the early pleistocene.

Steve, I was taught early on in my career to be leery of statements =
containing "all", "always", or "never". Cows don't "compete with *all* =
wildife on the site for food", of course, since not all the wildlife are =
even herbivorous. That the cattle "Might" collapse rabbit burrows is =
merely speculative, and if they do collapse burrows, what 'might' be the =
effect? Extinction of the rabbits? Hasn't happened yet with all these =
years of grazing - in fact, the grazed property is where the rabbits =
are. Hardships and marital stresses? A little anthropomorphic for me... =
Crushed baby bunnies in their burrows? A little too much hype - like =
the WW1 posters of the nasty Huns butchering the fair maidens of La =
Belle France...

Also, Might you provide some of the Pre-Holocene references about the =
'research question'. as well? Sorry, I can't decipher petroglyphs... =
:-)

Better yet - Tell you what. Why don't we wait until the WDFW folks have =
completed their study, analyzed their data, prepared their report, had =
it reviewed by their peers, and then see what it says? Then, we can =
have some information upon which to base our judgments, rather than =
rejecting their management out of hand. Or, will the information have =
to conform to what we already "know"?

Jon. Anderson
Olympia, Washington
festuca at olywa.net