🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <40gen6$aj7@digdug.pencom.com>,  <robin@pencom.com> wrote:
>Doug.Bashford%ow@salata.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>
          [....................]
>
>Also, precisely what "damage" are these "cattlemen" causing?  Are you 
>referring to their livestock, or to them personally?
>

Not long ago, I picked up a publication at a USFS ranger station
in Nevada, entitled "Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian Areas".
It was written by Ed Chaney, Wayne Elmore and W.S. Platts, of
the Northwest Resource Information Center (publication date July 1990),
under contract with the EPA. 

On the inside back cover, I found this:

 U.S. Gov't Printing Office 1991 574-018/113/241/242/243/244

Don't know what all these numbers mean, but I imagine
that you will find them helpful if you are interested
in acquiring a copy (which I strongly urge you, or any
interested lurkers, to do!!). 

It describes in great detail the impacts of livestock grazing 
in the West, citing case studies where livestock have been 
removed from previously over-grazed areas -- it has plenty of 
***before and after*** pictures which are quite dramatic.  

Although the document is written in diplomatic language
so as not to hurt anybody's feelings, it really is a
devastating indictment of many western grazing practices.


>:   This degradation is not appreciated by the the public when they
>:   see it because they do NOT see it.  Why?  The degraded state
>:   is what we have been born into, that is what we assume is the
>:   natural state.  Multi generational environmental degradation
>:   is rarely noticed.  Does that mean it is ok?   I suppose that 
>:   some could argue that it is.
>:   --Doug Bashford
>
>Funny, I don't see this degradation...  ;-)
>

That's because you haven't seen the above publication....

To see the degradation, you have to know what to look for.

>More importantly, I reject the notion that things are "degrading" due 
>_mostly_ to human input.  I believe things are changing -- to be sure.  But 
>_any_ degradation I see is the result of the constant change in 
>_everything_.  To define it as "worse" or "better" is purely subjective.
>
          [....................]

I suppose that you don't find a crystal clear, aspen-lined stream 
filled with tasty pan-sized trout any more appealing than
a cowpie-filled mudhole, but I do. But I guess that's simply
because we have different tastes. ;-)

          [.....................]

>:  Most rangelands are currently in deteriorated ecological
>:  conditions.  Past grazing practices have had detrimental
>:  effects on the composition, function, and structure of native
>:  ecosystems.
>
>If you define "different" as "detrimental", then I can see the point.  If 
>you aren't allowed to get away with this rediculous assumption -- why are 
>any changes "bad"?  How do we know that changes wouldn't have occured 
>_anyway_?
>

From "Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian Areas"

"In fact, extensive field observations in the late 1980's 
suggest that riparian areas throughout much of the West were in
the worst condition in history.... Many once-productive fish
and wildlife populations have been eliminated or greatly 
reduced over wide areas of land."

"Many streams throughout the West are littered with 
the remains of what were once vigorous aspen groves.
Aspen reproduce by sending up shoots from roots.
If these young plants are constantly grazed off, 
eventually the parent trees will die of old age and
the aspen will disappear from the site."

"Bad" enough for you? And there are plenty more examples
where these ones came from...



>By your logic, I choose to define changes as "beneficial".  I believe that 
>the prior "ecosystems" were defective, and the modern grazing techniques 
>have improved them dramatically.  However, I believe we still have a long 
>way to go...  We should step up our efforts to graze livestock on federal 
>properties.  Perhaps we should increase the subsidies we pay to 
>beneficiaries of this land, to encourage even more use.
>

Ummmmm..... I think that I'll leave this one alone...

>Why is a "decrease in native species richness" bad?  Can you quantify the 
>asserted "decrease"?  Aren't there new species taking the place of old ones 
>(you just told us that there are now livestock in these locales)?  What is 
>the "assumed" benefit of "species richness"?

Ditto for this one....


[.........................]

>Oops...  How are "bighorn" sheep any different than domestic sheep?  Why 
>are they definitively "better"?  Why does their "grazing" not hurt the 
>eco-system, but domestic sheep do?
>

groan.......


[..........................]

>So cow-shit is different from buffalo-shit?  Do you really believe that 
>cow-dung doesn't decompose naturally (with or without beetles)?  I _defy_ 
>you to find me a locale (in the Western US) where I can deposit a load of 
>cow-feces that won't decompose _completely_ by the second rain or the 
>second month (whichever comes first).
>

How about the Sierra Nevada. If you visit some of the meadows right
after snow-melt in late spring/early summer, you will find plenty
of cowpies from the previous summer. 


>
>: The quality
>:  and availability of water is also diminished by the presence
>:  of livestock.  Overall, these activities lead to increased
>:  evapotranspiration rates and desertification.
>
>Then why do we have an increasing number of forested acres each year?  
>Certainly there was a time that this was true -- but re-forestation efforts 
>and careful management have _totally_ reversed these trends.  Likewise, 
>conservation and cleanup efforts have led to _vastly_ improved water 
>supplies.  I'd really like to see your research on increased 
>"evapotranspiration" and "desertification"...  If only because it goes 
>against all the current published data...

Could you provide some of that published data?

[...................]

>
>:  Livestock, especially cattle, spend a disproportionate
>:  amount of time in riparian habitats.  Thus, these sites, which
>:  are among the biologically richest in the region, are easily
>:  damaged.  Because these communities provide essential
>:  habitat for a wide variety of species, this can have severe
>:  effects on regional biotas.
>
>_ALL_ species spend more time by the water than they do on dry land...  
>(Duh!)  Think about it -- there are only a few locations where they can get 
>water -- and vast stretches of land where water is missing...  How many 
>"dumb" animals would simply start hiking on to find the next water hole 
>when the one adjacent to thier grazing ground still has water in it?  They 
>will loiter near the water hole until either the food runs out, the water 
>runs out, or a preditor chases them away...  This is true for _ALL_ 
>species.  So why are cattle worse than Elk or Bison?
>

Please, Please, Please, obtain a copy of "Livestock Grazing on
Western Riparian Areas" and ******read it********.


        [.............................]

>:  The ecological evidence is clear that livestock grazing must
>:  be drastically reduced in the American West.  We urge the
>:  public land management agencies to undertake the
>:  following for lands and resources under their jurisdiction:
>
>What "evidence"?  I haven't seen _ANY_ evidence?  I've seen one bold 
>assertion after another -- but if this document is missing any one thing -- 
>it is "evidence".

The document that I am recommending that you look at is
packed with just the sort of evidence that you claim to
be looking for....

       [...............................]

>
>For someone who wants to make scientific information available -- you've 
>sure provided precious little of it in your article...  Perhaps you 
>actually _do_ have such data -- they real issue is why didn't you use this 
>article to post it?  (Does it have anything to do with that "honesty" part 
>from above?)
>
>:  5.  Establish a network of significant areas where livestock
>:  are excluded, to serve as benchmarks for scientific
>:  evaluation of the ecological effects of grazing.
>
>Ah...  So you are admitting that you _don't_ have any data (how could you 
>-- you don't have any control areas)?
>
   
If you bother to track down the publication that I mentioned above,
you will find **plenty** of control areas (where livestock
have been excluded). The differences between the grazed and
non-grazed areas are so dramatic that only someone like
Ray Charles could fail to see those differences.

I highly recommend "Livestock Grazing..." to anyone who
is interested in learning more about grazing in the West.
With the information that I have provided above, anyone
who is interested in reading it should be able to get
a copy by making a couple of phone calls. (One to
directory assistance and one to the US Gov't Printing Office).

Note: From where I am posting, we don't get tx.politics.
So the original poster may not see this unless someone
with access to that newsgroup passes it along...

>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>***  These are my opinions... Mine! All Mine! Minemineminemineminemine!   ***
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Robin D. Wilson               robin@pencom.com                Pencom Software
>701 Canyon Bend Dr.                                 9050 Capital of Texas Hwy
>Pflugerville, TX  78660                                     Austin, TX  78759
>(512) 251-1737                                                 (512) 343-6666