Do rangelands need to be grazed?

Here's a response I wrote to a student who had read my Is Ranching Sustainable article and challenged me suggesting that since bison once grazed the West, our rangelands "need" to be grazed. It's a common argument, and one heard often from ranching advocates. His original email to me is below my comments.

Alex:

Thanks for writing. Glad to see you are thinking about these things to some degree and that you are curious enough to look at it further. I think if you look into this issue more, you might find that the conclusions need greater refinement.

You raise the point about cattle replacing bison. I have an article on my blog (Wuerthner on the Environment) about that issue and it goes into more details, but bison are no more the same as cows as polar bears are the same as black bears--though obviously they are related. Cattle evolved in moist woodlands (like Georgia or Alabama) in Euro Asia. They have a host of evolutionary features that makes them unsuitable for western rangelands. Bison on the other hand have many features that makes them better adapted to the arid west. For instance, bison move all the time--whether they run out of food or not. They naturally spread their grazing impact over a much larger area. The hump gives them a fulcrum point that permits them to canter for long distances with little energy out put. Cattle are far less mobile not to mention that we have bred them to be fat and lazy. Bison can digest much less nutritious forage than cattle meaning they don't need hay produced by drawing western rivers for irrigation. Bison are better able to fend off predators meaning we don't need to kill predators like wolves because bison are perfectly capable of defending themselves. Etc. etc. etc.

So the assumption that we can replace bison with cattle is like suggesting that if polar bears were driven to extinction, we could move a bunch of black bears up to the ice floes and they would figure out to survive and eat seals. The only way we could raise black bear on the polar seas is with huge subsidies--both environmentally and economic--which is the only reason that ranching survives in the West.

But beyond that point, you may not be aware that most of the West's public lands were never grazed by large herds of grazing animals. Bison were found all the way to the East Coast, but they were seldom found west of the mountain front in the West. I.e. they were found on the plains of Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, etc. but not beyond. Most of the public land in the West lies west of the mountain front in Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, eastern Oregon, California, and so on. There were no large herds of bison in these places. (There are a few exceptions to this which again I won't get into here, but as a generalization, most of what is now public lands was outside of the normal range of bison. So cattle are not replacing bison, and more importantly, the plants that live in these parts of the West do not tolerate grazing pressure.

The Great Plains is a different story, but that is not where the bulk of public lands allotments are located.

Third, even at the levels of stocking that are done today, ranching isn't surviving in this region. What is surprising to most people to learn is that most of our beef is not produced in the West, and particularly not on public lands, but in the East. Virginia produces more beef than Wyoming--the Cow Boy State, and Florida has more cows than New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Nevada combined. There is more beef raised in tiny Vermont than on all the public lands in Nevada. The reason? The West is a very unproductive place, particularly the public lands. These are generally the driest, most rugged, and least productive lands in America. You can feed a cow on a few acres in Georgia that would require several hundred acres of land in dry Nevada to sustain the same cow.

The point is that the West is too arid to support economically viable livestock production. Even the private lands in the West--which on the whole are more productive than public lands, can't sustain viable ranching operations. And that was the major point of the essay you read.

Now to your other point that these lands "need" to be grazed. What you will find is that most rangeland plants "tolerate" some moderate amounts of grazing. But keep in mind that there are all kinds of animals grazing on the grasslands whether there are cows on out there or not. For instance, in Yellowstone Park (where there are no cows) you have elk, bison, etc. grazing the plants. But surprisingly these animals are not the most important grazers on the plants. Grasshoppers and nematodes consume far more of the grass biomass than any of the larger animals. In most grasslands, even among mammals, small rodents like ground squirrels and prairie dogs (where they are not poisoned and killed by ranching interests) consume far more of the biomass than larger animals. We are so focused on the big animals that we forget that in most ecosystems, it's the small creatures that are really important. Even if there were not a single elk or bison in Yellowstone, the grasslands would be grazed. So the idea that we need cows to do something to those grasslands is absurd. Grasslands are grazed all the time, just not by cattle.

And there are important ways that these other grazers use the landscape that makes them far superior to domestic livestock. One can't assume that we can replace grasshoppers and ground squirrels with cattle and everything is hunky dory.

Please keep in mind that most range literature whether read by Michael Pollan or you is produced by range departments which have a vested interest in promoting livestock. So you have to look carefully at their studies. For instance, I recall a number of studies that purported to show that livestock grazing "improved" riparian areas. What the studies compared were areas grazed by high stocking rates of cattle with areas with fewer cattle. The areas with fewer cattle "improved". The range study proclaimed that "grazing improved riparian areas."

What the studies really showed is that less grazing was better, and other studies have shown that no grazing is even better than less grazing in terms of riparian area health. But these range professors did not have a control (a typical defect of range studies). It would be like a tobacco company showing that those who smoked one pack of cigarettes a week had less chance of lung cancer than those who smoked three packs a week, then suggesting that smoking could lead to improved health.

Keep in mind that response is not the same as benefit. In other words, grasses will grow more above ground biomass if cropped whether by a bison, cow or grasshopper. But that doesn't mean they "need" to be cropped. Typically range studies only look at the above ground parts of a plant because that is what they are interested in since that is what cows eat.

In fact, if the above grass biomass is cropped a lot there is a loss of biomass in the roots--making such plants more vulnerable to droughts--this is one of the reasons that livestock grazing can cause so called "overgrazing". The plants don't die directly from grazing. They disappear gradually because grazing by livestock diminished their root system, and eventually a drought killed them.

So this is an issue about what you are measuring. Is above ground biomass the appropriate measurement of "grassland health?" Well to the rancher it is important because they want more grass for their cows--so most range scientists focus on measures of this kind of thing. And at the same time, they typically ignore the loss of root biomass because that doesn't favor grazing by cows--which after all is what they see as their mission.

Let me give you another example of how not only what you measure, but how you interpret things affects your conclusions. I can show you lots of studies that show that if you kill coyotes they will respond by having more pups. Does that mean coyotes "need" to be shot, poisoned and trapped? Hardly. It just means they can cope with a certain level of exploitation. But I assure you that coyotes do just fine without being killed all the time by humans. They don't "need" to be killed. Yet if your goal was "production" of more coyotes, than you might conclude that coyotes need to be shot, trapped, and poisoned, since in the end this would produce more biomass of coyotes.

If you are really interested in learning more about this so you can have a more informed perceptive, I might suggest you visit my web site where I have at least some articles that address these and other issues.

Thanks for writing.

Alex Aizenman wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> I am sitting in my primate social behavior class at the moment, Which happens to be an incredible waste of time, So I took to scanning the Counterpunch website for some interesting articles to pass the time and I have just read your most recent output to the site, "Is Ranching Sustainable." Just from reading the title I knew what I what you were going to say- Ranching is most definitely not the future of public lands in the west. I am sorry to inform you, but I am really disappointed in your article and your conclusions about ranching. Ranching must must must be the future of western rangelands, for the lands health and our own.
>
> It is incredible to me, that such an educated person such as yourself is seemingly unaware of what many people are doing with their alloted public lands in the west, most importantly, what they are doing to it with the use of cows. Obviously you are correct in saying traditional ranching practice is unsustainable. We all know that (barring those traditional rancher perhaps, but they will know it soon enough). What you are not considering is that Rangeland is MEANT to be grazed. Our rangeland is evolved to have large grass eating ruminants on it, Most specifically- Buffalo. There is a symbiotic relationship we have got going on here- grass need grazers, grazers need grass. You remove part of that equation your going to get unhealthy land, and in this case the continued dessertification of west. It is a myth that if you leave land alone it will gain its maximum health potential. Read anything about holistic resource management and you will learn more.
>
> Anyways, So we got all this grassland or potential grass land but we ain't got the buffalo anymore. Well we got cows (which have been in th west for over 300 years). We can use these cows to our advantage and to the lands advantage as long as we do so with out violating certain rules, namely the rule of the second bite- you can read Michael Pollan for that one (or Joel Salatin for that matter). Just read anything by Allan Nation, Joel Salatin, or you can email eschewennessen@gmail.com and they will tell you everything you need to know, way better than I can about the importance and potential of ranching and holistically managed grazing. Humans can actually make the land better by intensive management ( hard to believe I know).
>
> As an environmental Science student at the University of Michigan, I have seen the limitations of traditional environmentalists and scientists with their leave the land alone and keep people out of nature mentality, as well as their reductive and break-down-the-world-in-to-manageable-parts scientific processes. If you really think there is a viable future in that I am sorry, But their ain't. Kids and students and old old people have to learn that we are part of nature, we have a role, we are all interconnected We will never break down nature into natures individual parts and think we can understand it that way. We have to look at the whole. What better future could you imagine than people getting back in touch with the land, becoming Holistic ranchers and farmers. That is the best future I can imagine right now and What I personally aim to do, And I sure hope there is some land that I can use to do it.
>
> Not to mention that holistically raised beef means healthy grass, healthy cows and healthy you.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alex Aizenman

Global Warming, Beef, and the Bovine Curtain

George Wuerthner

Just like the old Iron Curtain that squelched any critical discussion of Communism’s failures, we in the West live behind a “Bovine Curtain.” The Bovine Curtain is—like the Iron Curtain—operated by the state, using taxpayer dollars to continuously broadcast propaganda about the virtues of ranching in the West and suppressing any negative or critical information. The mantra “cows are good” is repeated so often that it has attained cult status, even among many conservation groups—who should know better.

Eating meat (domestic livestock), particularly beef, has one of the biggest environmental impacts on the planet. In many ways making a change from a livestock based diet to plants (or wild game) is one of the easiest things that most of us can modify in our personal behavior to lessen our collective burden upon the planet. Producing one calorie of animal protein requires more than 10 times as much fossil fuel input—releasing more than 10 times as much carbon dioxide—than does a calorie of plant protein.

In the summer 2007 report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN researchers concluded that livestock production is one of the … most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” According to the UN, livestock contributes to “problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.” But few environmental groups mention this report or its findings, particularly if they are located in the cowboy West behind the Bovine Curtain. They would have to admit that the findings conclusions apply equally as well to the western U.S.

In particular the report singled out livestock production as a major contributor to global warming emissions, yet even Al Gore ignored livestock’s role in global warming during his Live Earth Concert. I don’t want to denigrate Gore’s efforts for he has brought much needed attention to global climate change. Nevertheless, while it’s well and good to ask people to screw in florescent light bulbs to reduce energy demands, the single biggest change that anyone could do to immediately reduce their contribution to greenhouse gases is to eat less meat.

Eating less meat has a surprisingly big bang for effort. Ranch and farm raised livestock produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane annually. These two gases account for 90 percent of US greenhouse emissions. For instance, all the trucks, SUVs, cars, airplanes, trains and other transportation combined accounts for 13 percent of global warming emissions, while livestock production is responsible for an astounding 18 percent of all US greenhouse gases.

Not only are there the carbon dioxide emissions from livestock production, but livestock, particularly cattle, are responsible for the majority of emissions of several other greenhouse causing gases. According to the U.N., animal agriculture is responsible for a whopping 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions. Bear in mind that nitrous oxide is about 300 times more effective as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide.

Methane is another gas produced by livestock. Methane traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide. The EPA reports that livestock production is the single greatest source of methane emissions in the US.

But when you live behind the Bovine Curtain most people are afraid to speak the truth or have internalized group think so completely that it does not even occur to people to ponder livestock’s central role in a host of environmental and health problems. Given their role as obsequious hand maidens to the livestock industry, it’s not surprising that federal and state governments hide the connection between meat production and global warming. But it’s totally unacceptable for environmental organizations to ignore this inconvenient truth.

For instance I recently checked the Sierra Club’s global climate change web site. They list ten things one can do to reduce global warming, from driving a more energy efficient auto to supporting renewable energy sources—but eating less meat is not one of them. It’s hard to believe that the Sierra Club is not aware of the UN report or other recent research linking livestock production with global warming, but one must assume that saying anything about livestock production is off limits when you live behind the Bovine Curtain.

Similarly I reviewed National Parks and Conservation Association’s new report, “Unnatural Disaster,” which describes the multiple ways that global warming will impact our national parks. The report suggests a host of solutions that range from more efficient energy use to adoption of renewable energy, but I could not locate any mention of eating less meat in the 48 page report.

And the Wilderness Society, while advising members to support carbon sequestration, mileage efficiency for vehicles, and other common remedies, did not mention of the role of livestock production and a meat diet in contributing to global warming.

Given that these national groups do not appear to see or more likely wish to avoid talking about a connection between diet and environmental issues, it’s not surprising that many regional or local environmental groups seldom mention livestock production as a global warming issue. They may express great concern about the decline of whitebark pine or large wildfires due to higher global temperatures, but they don’t go the next step to tie these issues to ranching and livestock production.

Try to raise any linkage to ranching and livestock and the Bovine Curtain slams down. In the West, we don’t talk about cows except to laud the ranchers for being “good stewards of the land” or some other fawning palaver.

Global warming is only one reason to end livestock production, particularly western ranching. Production of livestock is the single greatest source of non-point pollution in the West. Livestock are among the prime reasons for the spread of invasive plants like cheatgrass. Producing hay and other irrigated forage for livestock is the reason our rivers are dewatered each summer. Livestock are the reason bison and wolves are killed outside of national parks. Livestock spread disease to wildlife. Livestock are the reason native wildlife like prairie dogs are being slaughtered. The list goes on, but few groups are willing to even list these impacts, much less tackle the source of the problem—cows.

The obvious omission of diet preferences among the proposed solutions to global warming is particularly noteworthy, especially when it involves no new technologies, no major policy changes in government, and no significant investment in new infrastructure. Eating less meat won’t cure global warming, but it’s the easiest and more cost effective mechanism available to ordinary citizens to start us on a new pathway towards global sustainability.

If you can’t afford a Prius, you can afford to eat less meat. Even if you can’t switch to solar energy, you can switch to a reduced meat diet. While most of us can’t design a wind mill, we can design a better diet. Eating less meat is not only good for the planet’s health, it‘s good for your health. It’s time for all of us to begin to view eating and our choice of diet as more than a culinary decision, but as an environmental act.

IS RANCHING SUSTAINABLE?

George Wuerthner









I hear often from livestock proponents that ranching is an economically sustainable use of western rangelands. Unfortunately many interested in conservation also believe this myth, and it has unfortunate public policy implications. As University of Montana economist Tom Power has noted, most people have a rear view mirror of their local and regional economies. They almost never know what is happening in the present and their ability to predict the future is even less accurate.

Ranching is doomed in the West by rising land values. Ranching, like all agriculture, persists on marginal land—lands that can’t provide a higher monetary return doing something else—usually real estate development. When land prices rise to the point that one cannot reasonably be expected to return sufficient profit to pay a mortgage on such property running cows, growing wheat or whatever, it signals the end of that industry—even though it may take a long time for the industry to completely disappear from the regional landscape. It is this long lingering death that fools people into believing ranching is sustainable.

With regards to ranching in the West, land values have already marginalized the industry. Few are buying ranches in the West to raise cows, or at least to make a profit raising cows. Today’s ranch purchaser is usually an amenity buyer who is more interested in seeing elk and catching trout than returning a profit from a livestock operation. For instance one recent study of ranching in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem found that most new ranch owners had earned their fortunes in other business endeavors. The ranch was a vacation home—a trophy to signal success—rather than a viable livestock operation. In many cases, if a cattle operation persists, it’s a tax write off rather than a source of income. Traditional ranching in the West is on life support and dying.

This was brought home to me a number of years ago when I was on a tour of a ranch along Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front. The rancher, who I’ll call Bob, had grown up on the ranch which his grandfather had homesteaded. His Dad inherited the ranch and passed it on to Bob. The fact that that three generations of Bob’s family had lived on the land was “proof” of its sustainability—or at least that is what Bob claimed.

However as we spent the day together Bob indirectly offered much evidence to suggest that ranching was not economically and socially sustainable, even as he asserted over and over again about how sustainable ranching was.

The first hint that ranching might not be sustainable occurred when we visited a bluff overlooking the river that flowed through the center of the ranch. Bob told how when his Dad was a kid there had been six families living in that river valley. But the low productivity of the land meant one needed a huge spread of land to just break even on ranching. The homesteads were simply too small to support an economically viable ranching operation. Gradually each family gave up ranching and sold their property to Bob’s grandfather and later his Dad so that today where once there were seven families living along this stretch of river beneath the mountain front, there was only one—Bob’s.

Later we were discussing his youth, and Bob told us how he used to ride a horse to the local schoolhouse three miles down the road from the ranch. Today the school is closed due to declining enrollment (all those families that left the valley and other nearby valleys were no longer sending their kids to the local school). Bob’s kids had to ride an hour or more on a bus to get to the nearest school. Bob lamented how he felt badly for his kids who couldn’t participate in a lot of school extra curriculum activities like after school sports teams because they had to get on the bus to get home. If they didn’t ride the bus home, it meant Bob and his wife would have to pick them up—a two hours round trip from the ranch—something they just wouldn’t do very often. His kids felt socially isolated and were not happy living on the ranch.

But it wasn’t only his kids who were socially isolated. Bob’s wife longed to move into Great Falls. She hated driving more than an hour just to shop for groceries. As the only “wife” living in that isolated valley, she also missed having social contact with other women.

In addition to the closure of the school, there was a decline in other essential services as well. Without a lot of ranches to support a large animal vet, Bob had to depend on a veterinarian who lived a long distance from his ranch and had only infrequent visits. The same thing applied to medical help. When Bob was a kid, there was a “country: doctor who attended to the needs of all the far flung ranching families, but with fewer families, Bob’s family often had to drive into Great Falls to attend to even simple medical needs.

Bob then confided that even though the ranch he inherited was formed from the “bones” of six other homesteads, it still wasn’t really large enough to run the number of cattle he really needed to succeed financially. With three kids that he was hoping would go off to college, his ranch, though considered a good sized spread by Montana standards, still could not produce enough income to pay for things considered essential by today’s standards like a college education for his kids. Paying for college, much less braces for teeth, computers, and other “necessities” of today’s family expectations was not something that his grandfather and father had to factor into the family budget.

But unlike his grandfather or even his father, Bob could not expand the ranch by buying additional lands. Land values had risen due to demand for amenity ranches and prices were now far above what any one could reasonably pay back raising livestock. Bob was “stuck” in time with a ranch suitable for a 1950 lifestyle with expectations and financial obligations of a 2000 lifestyle. And because it was a long ways from the ranch to a sizeable town where other employment options were available, Bob’s wife couldn’t take on a job to provide a second income—which is how most traditional ranchers are surviving at all these days.


To make matters worse from Bob’s perspective, he increasingly had to make minor changes in his ranch operations due to environmental concerns. For instance in the past he could drain the river to fed his thirty hayfields. But today there were endangered fish in the river, and he was under pressure to reduce his water usage. Of course, one could suggest that if Bob really internalized all the environmental costs of his livestock operation he wouldn’t’ be in business another day. But times change slowly and he has only had to make some minor adjustments to appease environmental regulators, but even these minor new costs were hurting what was really a marginal economic operation. In the past, he could “externalize: all these costs on to society and the land’s wildlife, but people was increasingly saying they wanted Bob to pay the real cost of raising cows in the arid West, and these “new” costs were cutting into his bottom line.

It’s been a few years since I was on Bob’s ranch, however, I ran into him recently at another event. When I inquired how things were going with the family, he told me that his wife had moved into Great Falls with the kids so they could attend high school and participate in things like after school sports. With a second house mortgage to support in the city, and those college tuitions to pay, Bob found it increasingly difficult to make the ranch financially solvent. At first Bob’s wife and kids would come out to the ranch on weekends and in the summer, but over time, these visits became fewer and farther apart. Eventually Bob’s wife met another man in Great Falls whom she married. Recently Bob sold his “sustainable” ranch to an amenity buyer. He remained on the ranch as its manager.

Bob is still insisting that ranching is sustainable—though he is now the ranch manager instead of the ranch owner. The new owner is more interested in elk and trout than cows. Bob still gets to play cowboy running some cows, though far less than in his Daddy’s day. And it’s not cows that are supporting the ranch now, rather money earned elsewhere in the economy. Bob will probably go to his grave thinking that ranching is sustainable, but his circumstances suggest otherwise.

What Bob described to me was all the reasons why ranching was not sustainable. They are economic as well as social. And they are being repeated over and over throughout the West. Unlike the gold placer deposits that disappear quickly, and with it a mining town, ranching is dying a slow death, cut by cut, but it’s terminally ill. It’s just taking a long time to die, and this fools people into believing that there’s a future for ranching.

This has major public policy implications. Many people resist land use planning and zoning believing there is an alternative—namely that ranching will protect open space. But in a region with rising land values, counting on ranching to preserve open space is a fool’s game. If people are genuinely interested in preserving open space, important wildlife habitat, and public access to the land, they are going to have to bite the bullet and buy it—either with conservation easements or outright fee purchase. That is the only way to preserve what we have now into the future.

Living Behind the Bovine Curtain

George Wuerthner




We in the West live behind a bovine curtain. Like people living behind the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe, we are inundated with propaganda that extols the virtues of livestock production in the arid West. Yet, like the people of eastern Europe whose leaders continued to tell them that communism worked despite the reality of empty shelves in the stores, we in the West are told by a host of livestock advocates that livestock grazing "improves" the landscape and is a relatively benign use of the land despite the reality of cow-blasted riparian zones, predator control, species extinctions, water pollution, and dewatering of our rivers.

Occasionally, radio free Europe broadcasts send us a different message from the "outside" world. The GAO and EPA and other organizations produce reports that paints a message quite different from the hoopla feed to us by the range managers, range "scientists", ranchers and others who have something to gain by maintaining the status quo. The EPA calls western riparian areas the "worst shape in history". The GAO suggests that most federal lands are "badly mismanaged". The Soil Conservation Service reports that a total of 410 million acres of rangelands (public and private) are in "unsatisfactory" condition. And so it goes. Reality doesn't jive with the propaganda.

A study conducted by the BLM of its lands in the late 1970's showed that the majority of its holdings were unsuitable for livestock grazing. But not surprisingly down came the bovine curtain, and the report was suppressed by western politicans and never released to the public. And even today, both the Forest Service and BLM frequently refuse to even consider the question of whether domestic livestock grazing is appropriate on any particular allotment. Instead, these public agencies spend more and more our money trying to make the land "fit" livestock. Hence we spend millions annually on fencing, stock ponds, pipelines, and other devices designed to "improve" livestock distrubtion and "mitigate" impacts.

And our tax dollars pay for the propaganda that continues to poar forth from the livestock industry. It's not that all of this information is wrong or that I believe most livestock advocates are purposely trying to distort the truth. I have no doubts that from their perspective, they believes everything they say is true. Some is. Most isn't.

Consider for example the common statement from the livestock industry suggesting the "vast majority of rangelands are stable or improving in condition". Sounds good until you examine the data yourself and discover that the vast majority of rangelands are in the "stable" category and stable in poor condition. Only a small percentage is actually improving and is matched by a nearly equal amount that is declining in condition, but by grouping stable with those acres under improvement, livestock advocates can say "the majority" of lands are improving. Of course, one could just as easily say the "majority" are declining as well. It is this is kind of misinformation and deception that characterizes so much of the information coming from the livestock industry and their lackeys in range "science".


This same deception is used when ranchers and other livestock supporters make the point that grazing benefits "wildlife". Unfortunately, an unconscious assumption of most ranchers and range managers in that "wildlife" equals a few big game species. There is much more to our wildlife heritage than these charismatic mega fauna. For dozens of species from the kit fox to the sage grouse to the Willow-Whitehorse trout, the influence of livestock grazing has been anything but positive, but these species are conveniently ignored when ranchers talk about the benefits of livestock grazing for "wildlife". In fact, livestock grazing is responsible for the extinction or near extinction of more species in the western United States than all other human activities combined!

But even the statements that livestock has lead to increases in big game species are deceptive. Many studies have demonstrated that livestock will displace elk, bighorn sheep, and other big game animals from pastures where cattle or domestic sheep are actively feeding. Frequently wild species are displaced into areas with less security cover, thermal cover, or foraging areas with poorer forage quality. Typically, these "costs" and questions about overall animal fitness are never reviewed by the researchers trying to prove that livestock "benefits" wildlife.

Another common myth is that elk, bighorn sheep, antelope and other big game species have increased since the 1960's and it is implied that improvements results from benefits associated with livestock grazing. While it's true that SOME big game species have increased in numbers, one needs to ask whether this is the result of livestock grazing or in spite of it. In reality, big game numbers have been increasing everywhere since historic lows near the turn of the century when overhunting coupled with excessive competition from livestock decimated most large ungulate populations. Since that time effective game laws, coupled with transplants, AND an overall reduction in livestock numbers, have all led to increasing numbers of these animals. Big game herds have increased in areas both in areas with livestock grazing and without. But they have increased more in areas without livestock.
To see the problem with such logic, let us turn to Colorado and its elk herd. At the turn of the century there were so few elk in Colorado due to overhunting that animals were transplanted from Yellowstone. Today there are more than a 300,000 elk in the state despite the fact that Colorado is one of the fastest growing states with a huge sprawl problem. But it would be wrong to imply that sprawl "improve" conditions for elk simply because there are more now than in 1900. Yet, this is exactly the same logic the livestock industry uses all the time to "prove" that livestock and wildlife are "compatible".

Such statements show a profound ignorance of how our ecosystems function. There are no empty niches. Each blade of grass that goes into the belly of a domestic cow is that much less forage that could be sustaining NATIVE species. The herbivore might only be a grasshopper, not a "good" animal like an elk. But that grasshopper will feed a rodent or a bird, which in turn may feed some other native species.

Besides consuming forage that might otherwise support native species, livestock "use" up space and water as well. Many species will, if given a choice, avoid areas under intensive livestock use. Water developments for livestock are not nearly as beneficial for wildlife as ungrazed ponds and springs. This is not to deny that one won't occasionally see wildlife using these developments, but in most instances, such developments destroy existing seeps, wetlands and springs which have far more beneficial use to wildlife than a mud-caked, cow-trashed development.

There is no doubt that "better livestock management" can mitigate some of the negative impacts associated with livestock grazing, but mitigation is different than suggesting that livestock grazing "improves" things. With few exceptions, the cumulative effect of domestic livestock grazing has a detrimental effect upon the landscape. Lessening those impacts is not the same as "improvement". So when a riparian zone is fenced and the riparian zone "improves" what we are really saying is that the absence of livestock or reduction of livestock is what "improved" the area. Yet most livestock propaganda has statements like "riparian areas improve with grazing". This is like suggesting that cars improved the air in LA after emission control devices were installed. Cars did not improve the air, and LA air shed would be better off with fewer or no cars.

Most environmentalists suggest we should work with ranchers for improved livestock management, but this is actually calling for the continued domestication of our native ecosystems. Just as timber management effectively makes our native forest ecosystems into tree farms, livestock management effectively turns our native rangeland ecosystems into feedlots for privately owned animals with all the profits going to the ranchers and the public left with the costs. Better livestock management almost always means more fencing, more water developments, more roads, more spraying, burnings, chaining, predator control and other activities designed to "better distribute" livestock. Better distribution is like building a taller smokestack. It spreads the pollution over a larger area so it is not as noticeable, but it doesn't necessarily mean there are fewer impacts.

There are plenty of opportunities for production of livestock on private lands in the United States. And for every rancher in Harney County, Oregon or Elko County, Nevada trying to make a living, there is a livestock grower in Georgia or East Texas trying to do the same. It's not like western ranchers are the only individuals attempting to provide consumers with meat. They are directly competing with livestock producers in other parts of the country. To suggest that we need to subsidize western ranchers so as to maintain rural economies is to sacrifice rural economies elsewhere in the country.

But rural economies are not the only thing we sacrifice by maintaining a western livestock industry. If we consider the ecological costs of meat production in the arid West with places like Georgia or East Texas, we find that ecological costs, while still substantial, are far less in the east or mid west than anyplace in the arid western U.S..

The reality is that cows are poorly adapted to live in dry climates. You can't get away from that fact. We can't afford to fence all the riparian areas in the West to protect them from cows. We shouldn't have to continue to dewater rivers to irrigate fields to produce crops to feed cattle. We needn't extirpate all the predators from public lands simply to make them safe for someone else’s privately owned cows.

Finally, many ranchers threaten to subdivide their property if they cannot continue to graze on public lands. The common assumption being that by permitting public lands grazing, we maintain the tax base, protect open space and prevent subdivisions from taking over valuable wildlife habitat. Yet, there is no evidence that access to public lands grazing actually prevents subdivisions or helps to maintain open space, except in a very few instances. In most cases, as demand for property increases, and the value of that land for other uses also increases, most ranchers eventually find the economic rewards of selling out too great to resist or simply have no choice as other uses making livestock production less viable. This has happened over and over again, suggesting that access to public lands grazing privileges is a poor substitute for strict zoning laws, conservation easements and other measures that can protect these values without sacrificing our public rangelands to support a few individuals. In many cases, the money being spent on administering, monitoring, and mitigating the impacts of livestock grazing would buy a lot of development rights or provide a significant amount of money for outright fee purchase of threatened lands.

We need to ask whether what we give up in things wild and free are worth the costs. If one looks at the cumulative effects of grazing on all "wildlife", on fisheries, on native plant communities, on watersheds, on soils, on recreation and on aesthetics, it becomes obvious that no human activity has had a greater impact upon our natural ecosystems than livestock grazing. And since livestock are exotic animals utilizing space, water, and forage that would otherwise support native species, domestic livestock use of these public lands is not compatible with maintaining native ecosystems and biodiversity.

We need to ask what this nation needs more. We can raise all the cows we need on private lands in the more humid areas of the country, but there are few places where we can protect large, intact ecosystems. Most of these areas are found in the West on public lands. As long as we have alien, non-native domestic livestock dominating the management direction of our native rangelands and using a majority of its forage, space and water, we will never realize the full potential of these arid regions.