hello tweets,

this message is quite long, but i think it is very well-worth
reading and thinking about. i have included the author's
snailmail address at the end, and stan's email address at the
beginning so you can contact either (or both) directly for
further comment. again, i know that i would be most interested
if we can keep this discussion here on tweeters. if stan
doesn't have the time to join tweeters himself, i have offered
to forward messages back and forth so we all can see the
ensuing comments that these messages are generating.

i did some formatting to fit the message to the screen, and i
have added some words in square brackets [] to indicate words that
were probably left out by accident from the original message that
i received.

regards,

Deborah Wisti-Peterson, Girl Scientist nyneve at u.washington.edu
Department of Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash, USA
Visit me on the web: http://students.washington.edu/~nyneve/
<><><>Graduate School: it's not just a job, it's an indenture!<><><>


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:31:49 GMT
From: stan moore <hawkman11 at hotmail.com>
To: nyneve at u.washington.edu, steelshard at tamu.edu
Subject: Livestock grazing myths -- by George Wuerthner (ecologist)

RangeBiome
A Public Rangeland Almanac
A Cowfree 21st Century

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY MYTHS
by George Wuerthner
(Reprinted from U.S. Forest Service message forum)

As the issue of grazing fees on public lands has raised the
visibility of public livestock grazing issues, the livestock
industry has used the opportunity to perpetuate myths that
have largely been unanswered or refuted by environmentalists.

RANCHERS AS GOOD STEWARDS

One myth is that ranchers have been good "stewards" of the
land. The emphasis on public lands has permitted people to
overlook the fact that, by and large, private lands are
actually in worse shape than the public lands. Although 160
million acres of public lands are considered to be in
unsatisfactory condition, more than 270 million private acres
fall into the same category. This is nearly equal in area to
the eastern seaboard states with Missouri thrown [in].

This is particularly disturbing because private holdings tend
to be more productive and better watered than the public lands,
thus more resilient to grazing abuse.

In total, according to the Soil Conservation Service more than
410 million acres of public and private lands are in unsatisfactory
condition meaning that they [are] ecologically trashed. This equals
21% of the United States outside of Alaska. Nearly all that
degraded land is concentrated in the West! Not an impressive
record. Although there are obvious exceptions, the fact remains
livestock production is still one of the most destructive and
wide-spread human activities in the West.

RANGELANDS ARE IMPROVING

A second myth is that rangelands are "improving." There is a
slight bit of truth to this. Rangelands were so trashed at the
turn of the century that most lands could not get any worse.
Nevertheless, rangeland degradation is still occurring. For
example, on BLM lands according to statistics complied by the
Society for Range Management, range condition is improving on
15% of the lands. However, this is nearly matched by the 14%
of its lands that continue to decline in condition. The vast
majority of BLM holdings are "stable" neither improving or
declining, in part because the majority of its lands are in
fair or poor shape and can not get much worse.

Furthermore, despite an "improvement" on uplands primarily
resulting from a decrease in livestock numbers, riparian areas
continue to be devastated. According to a 1990 EPA report, our
riparian areas are in the "worst condition in history." And a
1989 General Accounting Office report found that livestock were
the major source of riparian degradation on public lands in
the West. Since riparian areas are part of an entire allotment,
overall "range condition" may improve while riparian areas
continue to be devastated. Uplands which receive little use are
averaged in with the declining riparian zones, thus masking the
true degradation that is still occurring to our lands.

Though riparian areas make up only 1% of the landscape, they
provide shelter and feed 60-80 percent of the species in the
West. Properly functioning riparian areas also store water
reducing flooding and providing late season flows. While it may
be possible to fence cattle out of these fragile areas, the
magnitude of the problem makes the cost prohibitively expensive
as a west-wide solution. There are hundreds of thousands of
miles of riparian habitat on public lands in the West. Fencing
averages more than $5,000 dollars a mile. In addition, we need
to ask whether the public wants or needs more fences on its
lands in order to make these lands better livestock pastures
for someone else's cattle?

LIVESTOCK BENEFITS WILDLIFE

A third myth is that "wildlife" benefits wildlife. There are two
things wrong with this statement. The first is "wildlife" as
defined by most range people and livestock advocates amounts to
nothing more than deer and a few other big game species--typically
animals that thrive on human disturbance or are the object of
intensive wildlife management. You can mask the impact of dams
on salmon by intensive management as well--i.e. hatchery
production, but that does not mean dams are not detrimental to
salmon populations.

Furthermore, the original decline in big game was due in a large
part to market and year round meat hunting. Once these abuses
were checked, big game numbers increased. It is not that livestock=20
production is particularly compatible with big game, rather
with better wildlife management, big game species have been able
to increase. Many species like bighorn sheep and antelope,
while at higher numbers than in the past, are still far below their=20
potential because domestic livestock use continues to compromise
the available habitat in ways detrimental to these species.

Many other species are not so fortunate. If you review the status
of nongame and predators, hundreds of species are extinct or
continue to decline largely due to impacts associated with
livestock production. While its (sic) true that livestock production
can increase the numbers of a few species, these are, without
exception, animals that are widespread and abundant like brown-headed
cowbirds, carp or whitetail deer--"weedy" species that thrive on
disturbance and degraded habitat. On the other hand species that
require undisturbed habitat or high quality landscapes have declined.
Species as varied as the Bruneau Hot Springs Snail to the willow
flycatcher to the Bonneville cutthroat trout are all endangered as
a consequence of habitat loss or degradation due to livestock
production.

A number of recent reviews articles looking at livestock effects
on wildlife found that far more species have decreased or been
harmed by livestock production than have benefited. This is true
no matter whether we are discussing birds, fish, mammals, or
amphibians. Other literature reviews have concluded that livestock=20
production was the leading cause of decline in native plant
species in the West, as well as one of the major agents responsible
for the spread of weeds and exotics. In terms of impacts on
biodiversity, livestock production (which includes dewatering of
rivers for irrigation, predator control, "pest" control, forage
competition, etc.) is responsible for the extinction and extirpation
of more species than any other human activity in the West.

PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING SUPPORTS THE FAMILY RANCHER

A fourth myth is that access to public lands supports the family
rancher. Grazing subsidies, like most agricultural subsidies,
disproportionately benefits large land holders. According to a
recent GAO report the largest 2000 allotment permittees in the
West control 74% of the public lands forage. This gives the larger=20
landowners, many of them corporations or extremely wealthy
individuals, a competitive advantage over small operators.

This is inequality is a factor of the way public lands allotments
are distributed. Access is based upon ownership of private base
operations. The wealthy ranchers own more land, thus more base
property, hence wind up with more federal lands allotments.
Only 10% of the public lands forage goes to permittees considered
"small operators." Thus, if we restricted access to public
lands only to those operations that are truly the small ma and pa
ranch operations, we'd still be able to eliminate livestock from
90% of the public lands.

WE "KNOW" HOW TO MANAGE RANGE ECOSYSTEMS

A fifth myth perpetuated by the livestock community is that we
know how to manage rangelands. In reality our knowledge of
rangeland ecosystems is minimal. Most range professionals know
almost nothing about rangelands other than a bit about a few
of the dominant grass species. The effects of livestock production
on soils, lichens, insects, watersheds, wildlife and most
ecological processes is virtually unknown. For example, ask any
range professional to identify common butterflies and bees in
an area and have them explain how livestock affect them? If
domestic animals remove the blossoms these insects fed upon, it's
obvious it has an impact, yet, we hear almost nothing about these
impacts. A similar lack of knowledge exists for the effects of
domestic livestock upon nearly every living thing found on our
rangelands. Considering the vast majority of the West is utilized
for livestock production, it is reasonable to suggest that domestic
animals may significantly affect many species. How can one
manage what one doesn't understand?

YOU CAN GRAZE DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND PROTECT BIODIVERSITY

A sixth myth is that you can protect biodiversity or even enhance
it with livestock production. Even many environmental groups
spout this dogma. Biodiversity by definition is preservation of
NATIVE species in something approaching original distribution
and numbers--allowing, of course, for natural population changes.
You cannot be putting the majority of the forage into domestic
animals and using the majority of the water in the West to grow=20
livestock feed, without significantly impacting native species.
Domestic animals are quite literally taking food, and water right=20
out of the mouths of native species. Grass does not follow the
cow. The forage and water pie is only so big. If the majority of=20
these resources are allotted to domestic animals as is the case,
then you significantly reduce the amount available to native=20
species. Every cow on public or private lands is reducing the
overall potential habitat for most NATIVE species from grasshoppers
to bighorn sheep. This results in smaller, fragmented populations,
ultimately reducing the long term viability of species.

Biodiversity preservation also requires preservation of natural
evolutionary processes like wildfire and predation=97both of
which have been significantly reduced as a consequence of livestock=20
production. Unfortunately this biological impoverishment
has been going on so long, and is so pervasive, that most people
are simply unaware of the degree that livestock has destroyed
our native ecosystems.

CATTLE HAVE MERELY REPLACED THE BISON

A seventh myth is that domestic animals, primarily cattle, have
replaced native herbivores like the bison. Though cattle and
bison have a common evolutionary ancestor, so do polar bear and
black bear, yet we would not suggest that they use the
landscape in the same way. Cattle evolved in moist woodlands in
Eurasia and are not well adapted to arid landscapes. They
use more water than bison, spend more time in riparian areas, and
have been bred for lack of mobility. They are poorly adapted to
arid western rangelands, hence one reason why domestic livestock=20
grazing has been so detrimental to these ecosystems.

GRASSLANDS "NEED" TO BE GRAZED

The eighth myth follows the previous one, arguing that since cows
emulate bison, and since rangelands were obviously grazed in
the past, then domestic livestock grazing cannot be detrimental.
Some even take this a step further to suggest that rangelands
"need" to be grazed.

There are two objections to this line of reasoning. First, much of
the public lands base in the western United States lies between
the Sierra-Cascades and the Rocky Mountains. Most of this vast
region never had large herds of grazing herbivores, hence the
plants species and soils are not adapted to continual removal and
trampling from domestic animals. The area without significant
herd "impact" includes most of the Great Basin (bison occurred in
a small portion of southeast Idaho and northeast Utah, but in
no significant numbers elsewhere in the region), the southwestern=20
grasslands, the Palouse prairie, California grasslands, and
various deserts like the Mohave, Sonoran, and Chihuahuan. Even
herds of antelope, bighorn sheep, and other herbivores although
found throughout this region, were never more than locally abundant.

Secondly, even where large herds of bison, elk and antelope were
common such as on the Great Plains, the plant species found
there "tolerated" grazing. They have adaptations that permit them
to thrive in spite of grazing, but not necessarily because they
"need" grazing. Just as exploited (read trapped, shot, and
poisoned) coyote populations can compensate for losses by producing
larger litters, some rangeland plants can compensate for some
grazing losses. However, it would be wrong to argue that coyotes
"need" to be trapped, shot, and poisoned to be "healthy" just=20
as it is wrong to conclude that most rangelands plants require
grazing to remain "healthy."

Furthermore, if cropping is necessary, there is no reason why
this shouldn't be done by native species from grasshoppers to
prairie dogs to bison rather than by domestic animals-- at
least on our public lands.

RANCHING IS ESSENTIAL TO RURAL ECONOMIES

The ninth myth is that livestock production is important employer
in rural communities. It's easy to see the fallacy in this
argument if you think about the numbers involved. In all of
Nevada, there are only 880 permittees that graze upon public
lands. And in the entire state less than 2,000 people are engaged
in any kind of agriculture including farming. One casino in Las
Vegas employs more people than the entire agricultural economy in
the state. Although other states may have higher numbers of
people involved in ranching, their overall numbers are typically
a small proportion of the state's economic picture. Livestock
production is a labor unintensive industry. It requires a lot of
land, but doesn't provide many jobs. This is partly the result
of the limited productivity of the western rangelands. Idaho,
for example, ranks 21st in the nation in beef production, though
the majority of its landscape is devoted to livestock production.
Wyoming, the "cowboy" state, is 30th . Nevada, Utah, and Arizona
fall somewhere well below these states.

One recent study done by the University of Arizona in Tucson found
that rural communities rather than being dependent upon the
livestock industry for their jobs, found the opposite to be true.
Ranch families actually depended upon the town for their economic
survival. Since all but the largest western livestock operations
are marginally profitable, most ranch families have at least one
or more people working full or part jobs in town to help support=20
the ranch. Without the income from positions as school teachers,
local government, or whatever, ranch ownership would not be
possible. The vast majority of people who call themselves ranchers
do so because they enjoy the lifestyle and the prestige that comes
with being a rancher, not because it's a viable economic activity.
As a consequence their contribution to rural economies is minimal.
The towns would survive without the ranches, but most ranchers
could not survive without the towns.

IT'S EITHER RANCHING OR SUBDIVISIONS

The tenth myth concerns subdivisions. Ranchers always try to silence
critics by suggesting that reducing or eliminating livestock
from our public lands, will lead to subdivisions. Supporting the
livestock industry, even increasing its subsidies, will not stop
the subdivision of ranchland into housing tracts. Those who advocate
such a strategy will fail because they don't understand the root of
the problem.

Ranching in the West is dead. As an industry it has always depended
upon marginal, inexpensive land. Ranchers in the West compete with
livestock productions in more productive, humid regions by an
economy of scale. They use more land. But when land prices rise,
this is no longer an option. Ranchers in the West can no longer
compete.

Furthermore, subdivisions are market driven, not supply driven. You
can have millions of acres of land for sale (as is the case over
most of the Great Plains), but if it's not in a location that has
some other attractive qualities, it will not sell--at least not for
subdivision development. It is the availability of jobs, amenities
like good fishing, skiing, scenery, bookstores, good restaurants
and other values that leads to subdivisions.

However, it is a fallacy to suggest access to public lands grazing
allotments has prevented subdivisions anyplace in the West, nor
will it in the future. It does not make sense to support an industry
that has degraded more of the West than any other human activity to
avoid further degradation from subdivisions, than it is for
someone to accept the slow death from cancer because they otherwise
might die from a heart attack. Neither is a good choice and one
would be wise to avoid both.

Furthermore, while subdivisions are a major impact upon the
landscape they influence, compared to livestock production, they
affect a tiny percentage of the land base. If livestock production
were significantly reduced over the entire West, we'd find the
situation closely analogous to Alaska, urban centers are surrounded
by relatively wild country. There is no reason why much of
the West cannot be restored to a near-pristine condition outside of
the major and minor urban areas. The only part of Colorado
where subdivisions and urban areas influence a significant
proportion of the landscape is the Fort Collins-Colorado Springs
area. Ditto for Utah's Wasatch Front, Nevada's Reno and Las Vegas
or Oregon's Willamette Valley. The West is, by and large, an urban
population. We live in cities or small towns. Inbetween is a lot of
space with almost no human habitation. If the degradation resulting
from marginal land uses like livestock production and logging were
eliminated or reduced, landscape ecosystem restoration across much
of the West would be possible.

If we wish to preserve open space, and biodiversity, there are only
three tools that have been shown to work effectively; zoning,
conservation easements and outright fee purchase. Of the three, fee
purchase provides the strongest long term protection. If we devoted
the same amount of money we currently waste propping up the
livestock industry and paying for all the environmental damage
wrought by the industry including loss of species, soil erosion,
water pollution, and other costs, we could easily purchase most of
the critical wildlife habitat in the West.

It's not a choice between condos and cows. Right now, following
the strategy most advocate of propping up the livestock industry,
all we will have is both condos and cows.

GOOD LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION AND ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION CAN CO-EXIST

Perhaps the biggest myth, accepted as much by some conservationists
as by the industry is the idea that if we only reform or
modify livestock practices, there's room for both livestock and
ecosystem functioning, landscape restoration and native species
on the public lands. Unfortunately, if we are giving a large
percentage of our landscape and resources from water to forage over
to livestock production, we are reducing that land's capacity for
native species and landscape functions. The choice is really
between whether our public lands should be used to subsidize
private industry or might not serve a greater good if we attempted
to maximize and enhance natural ecosystems. After all preservation=20
of native species on private lands faces an uncertain future.
Perhaps we will learn how to use the land while sustaining=20
native species and ecosystems. But we should admit that we have not
successfully done this on any kind of a landscape-wide scale
anyplace. It would be a prudent and reasonable goal to make
preservation of biological diversity and ecosystem functioning the
primary function of public lands. These lands are the only places
where landscape wide management can be effected. To suggest that we
know how to support logging, grazing or other resource consumptive
uses while sustaining native biodiversity is to perpetuate the
greatest myth of all.

George Wuerthner
POB 1526
Livingston, Montana 59047