On the OPEN RANGE : GEORGE WUERTHNER

Guest Column: We Ought Not Grow Cows In Dry West  

By George Wuerthner, Guest Writer, 4-11-07

The West is a powerful place. Soaring mountains. Vast plains. Boisterous rivers. Huge spaces.

But one attribute defines the West more than any other—aridity.

Aridity imposes limitations and costs on human enterprises. Nowhere are the limitations and costs of aridity less apparent, yet reaping more degradation and destruction than the failed attempt to create a viable livestock industry in this dry region. 

Livestock production--which includes not only the grazing of plants, but everything it takes to raise a cow in the arid West including the dewatering of rivers for irrigation, the killing of predators to make the land safe for cattle, the fragmentation of landscapes with hay fields and other crops grown to feed livestock, combined with the pulverization of riparian areas under cattle hooves, and the displacement of native wildlife--is by far the worse environmental catastrophe to befall the West.

Though the resulting biological impoverishment is less obvious to the average person than say the impacts of logging or a mine, its ecological wounds are greater. No other activity affects more of the West in more ways than livestock production.

If this sounds a bit like hyperbole consider the following. Livestock production occurs on more than 850 million acres of public and private land in the West— one third of the US land area! More importantly this is by far the driest, most fragile third of the country. Given the vast amount of land affected, and the fact that most livestock production is anything but benign, the biological impoverishment caused by the livestock industry is potentially staggering. Although no full accounting of the true cost of livestock production has ever been undertaken, we do know that livestock production is responsible for some superlatives.

It is the single greatest cause of soil erosion in the West. It is the number one source of non-point water pollution. It is the major consumer of scarce western water, and the major factor in the extirpation of many native species from the wolf to the grizzly bear.  It is the reason that the West’s wide open spaces are fragmented, fenced, and domesticated. Not surprisingly given all the above, it is also the leading cause of species decline and the major factor in the listing of more western endangered species than any other cause.

Most of these problems are ultimately traced to aridity. Since there is little we as humans can do to effectively change the natural limitations of western geography, any proposals to make ranching somehow less destructive and more benign soon run into these non-negotiable conditions.

Aridity has its cost. Low precipitation and frequent drought accounts for the West’s limited productivity. By comparison in many parts of the moist and humid East one can raise a cow year round on a single acre of ground. In many parts of the arid and rugged West 100-200 acres or more are necessary to sustain a cow. Such vast expanses require more investment in fencing, water developments; more gas in the pick up truck and just time spent gathering stock. Not surprisingly Louisiana produces more beef than Wyoming —the Cowboy State . And despite the fame of Georgia peanuts and fruit, the peach state produces more cattle than Nevada .

The wide open spaces that the West is famous for also means that livestock are far more vulnerable to predators. Most ranchers simply put their animals out on the range and allow them to fend for themselves for weeks or months at a time, giving predators plenty of opportunities for a free lunch. But in the moist East where most livestock are grazed on the back forty, one can readily monitor livestock daily and even put them in a barn or corral each night for protection. In the West, the nearly universal response has been to extirpate the predators.

And while in the moist East the grass two hundred yards from a stream is just as green and lush as along the waterway, in the West, nearly all green lush vegetation is concentrated in the thin green line of riparian vegetation. Here cows congregate and trample streambanks, pollute waterways and destroy the riparian habitat that is essential to the survival of 75-80 percent of the West’s wildlife.

In the moist East where it rains you can grow hay or other water-loving crops for animal feed without irrigation. In the West we destroy rivers by damming them, and draining them to grow hay. And with the destruction of rivers, we place into jeopardy fish as diverse as the Bonneville cutthroat trout to the Sacramento smelt. And so it goes. If you want to grow livestock in the West you can only do it by subsidizing the livestock operation with environmental degradation—and not surprisingly as the many federally funded irrigation projects, predator control, and other state and federally funded projects demonstrate—a great deal of taxpayer money as well.

I am not trying to make a case for raising beef in the East—even in the East livestock production is a very ecologically costly endeavor. Rather I am suggesting that the West is a totally inappropriate place to raise cows.  That is not to say there are not better or worse ways to ranch, and some ranchers are more conscientious than others, but all must ultimately face the reality of geography. And aridity results in livestock induced ecological costs and places economic constrains on what ranchers can afford to spend to mitigate the problems created by geography and the use of a water-loving, slow-moving, dim-witted domestic animal for stock. The western livestock industry is built upon a poor foundation—the domestic cow—and like a house built upon a steep eroding hillside, you can not ultimately fix the problem by continuously prompting up the industry.

What will a West freed from the yoke of cows be like?

For starters many species currently at low numbers or restricted distribution will see their populations grow to fill the great spaces of the West.  Wolves may again howl beyond the city limits of Boise and Salt Lake . Salmon once again may jam the spawning beds of the Salmon, John Day and Powder rivers. Bison could roam the prairie just beyond the city limits of Casper , Denver and Billings . Rivers will run clear and full.

This rejuvenated West won’t be some throw back to the times of Lewis and Clark—we have crossed too many ecological thresholds and we have too many people for that to be a reality any time soon. But this new livestock-free West will nevertheless almost certainly will be more ecologically productive, more beautiful, and wilder than at present. And that is plenty good enough for me.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  George Wuerthner is a writer, activist, biologist and photographer whose pictures can be seen at George Wuerthner Photography.

Comments

By JW, 4-11-07 Bison filled an ecological niche. Not sure how for how long in ecological history or how their biomass compared to todays cows. I have heard some of the ways the impacts are different. Seems like cows-no cows discussion benefits from recognizing that significant presence of this general type of range forage animals is not new, developed naturally. Options for future include status quo, no cows ....or mimicking to some degree the practices/impacts of bison as some alternative range use advocates have been developing.  

By RMF, 4-11-07 Good piece -- but I missed any mention of free roaming horses and burros, both of which (despite explicit federal legislation meant to protect them) have lately been subjected to a campaign of eradication under the present administration's oversight, I suspect egged on by the Beef Cattleman's Assoc.

Check out http://www.wildhorsepreservation.org for some hard data.

Also the Land Institute is worth looking at for ideas related to a prairie commons -- I think Wes keeps a Buf or two around in support of their return.  

By aip, 4-11-07 That is right, JW. Bison created swallows, which were rounded miniature impoundments in which they cooled and mudded themselves in. These swallows did more that just collect water for Bison. They also encouraged rainwater infiltration into our groundwater resources. The landscape used to be dotted with these simple catchments. Now? We have cattle plunging themselves through muddy destroyed riparian areas.  

By Deb, 4-11-07 Fear mongering about cattle is out of date. Oil and gas development, not cattle, is the greatest threat currently faced by public lands. Over the past several years, the BLM and FS have supervised the leasing and development of oil and gas on multi-millions of acres of public land; oil and gas development is now rampant and without supervision for the permanent destruction it causes. The Bush/Cheney administration has quietly and systematically dismantled federal laws and administrative rules meant to provide protection to the immediate environment from the destructive impact caused by seismigraphic activity and development of oil pads and accompanying roads, from methane gas exploration and production, salt-water disposal, by-product production of lethal hydrogen sulfide, millions of miles of pipelines, and so forth. NEPA requirements have been gutted. Categorical exclusions have been implemented wholesale, erasing any opportunity for input into location and siting of pads and roads, restrictions to protect wildlife, sensitive terrain, or air quality. Stop tilting at windmills and tackle the real threat to the West. There's plenty that needs to be done, but it starts with intelligent, sensible, open minds rather than vague and unfounded diatribes that serve only to polarize.  

By CVM, 4-11-07 I would disagree that "Most of these problems are ultimately traced to aridity." Most of the problems with rangeland agriculture are a result of improper management; too many cows on the range and in the wrong places for too long. Because "we have crossed too many ecological thresholds" even a rejuvenated West would require responsible management. Too many people...now that I agree with. Fix that problem and most other ecological problems will also be remedied.  

By Feral Cat, 4-11-07 There are all kinds of industries that do damage to the arid West including just having humans in multiple houses, but it's hard to go back in time. Raising corn has its upside and downsides, mostly down for me. Corn syrup is making us all into children of the corn. I was struck watching "Planet Earth" last night of the struggles of all animals in this world. We should all be more aware at how easy some of us have it and how hard it is for others to eke out a living. and how hard it is for some animals to even find a decent watering hole. There are responsible people in every occupation and also cheats. There are small ranchers who intensive graze their land like the buffalo or the elephants and other grazers that I watched in the program last night called "The Plains". Our enemy is not the cow, but agribusiness. Our enemy is not the cow, but other men.  

By Thomas, 4-11-07 Well George, an interesting read of environmental extremism! What do you propose the American people eat? Or are you now going to tell us what we are allowed to eat too?

Most cattlemen are also conservationist, not environmental waco terrorist. They care for the land and have done so for many generations. Sure there are some who just don't care and it is those that need to be dealt with.

"This rejuvenated West won’t be some throw back to the times of Lewis and Clark..." I strongly disagree. You propose throwing back to the times of the "old West!" We see it in Alaska now, the "Great Last Frontier" where these same Environmental Waco Terrorist want to change the entire State into a National Park and kick all the people out!

What’s next George? Tearing and burning down Cheyenne and Denver to return it back to its former pristine state?

The beef that you buy in the store comes from the same cattlemen that you frivolously attack!  

By JT, 4-11-07 George's article is deceiving. When he states "this is by far the driest, most fragile third of the country" he is wrong. A basic knowledge of disturbance ecology indicates that the dry portions of the West generally evolved with frequent disturbances (particularly fire and grazing) and because of this are in fact *remarkably* resilient rather than fragile. If you give most western ecosystems time to "bounce back" they do. However if you convert the economy from a natural-resource-based one to the modern urban economies that seem to be so rapidly converting our lands to chain-store malls and subdivisions, the land does not have a chance to show it's resiliance.

Like so many attacks these days, this one hides behind the veil of environmentalism. What he is attacking is an economy that sustains people naturally at low population densities. To be economically viable each ranching family needs large amounts of relatively undeveloped lands. The vast areas of undeveloped lands that coincide with healthy ranching economies are the same areas that the environmentalist in me loves. The real challenge for environmentalists is keeping these ranches together. I only hope that the ranching business will remain attractive to future generations so that children of ranchers do not leave the business and sell off the ranch, for fear of working themselves to the bone and only being rewarded with poverty. Perhaps if we could label beef in such a way that there was a premium demand for family-owned grass-fed beef.....?  

By Jack, 4-11-07 This article is typical of 'environmental extremists' I am sure back east primarily or maybe California included who have no idea what public lands are that are managed for multiple-use land management by law. On public lands you blame the livestock but not the managers and agencies. Livestock managed through purposeful management such as rest-rotation grazing can benefit the very resources that you are critical of. Lock it up and throw away the key is the solution of the 'radical environmentalists'. I am sure you oppose public hunting on public land as well as about every other recreational use including public land access as well.

All public lands in the west are not national parks. If you really want to see mismanaged public land subject to soil erosion/overgrazing with no livestock visit the Lamar Valley and Mammoth area in Yellowstone National Park . Gross mismanagement by the NPS who you praise. Animals like bison starve to death inch by inch and leave the park to find winter forage that is why they leave. Then there is the wolves the biggest wildlife management blunder in the history of wildlife management.The wolves have devastated the elk population. But of course talking to a 'radical environmentalists' is like talking to the door! Look into the Cherry Lake -Cherry Creek fish poisoning venture something important. Why poison native Yellowstone cutthroat trout inside the Lee Metcalf national wilderness area in pristine water in the lake and streams? For west -slope to be brought in artificially that won't survive? Isn't that working against nature? Find out who is funding most of it. Ask FWP in Montana for details. Now they plan to put the same poison in 'natural wetlands' protected under federal law. Here is something you can write about. Get on this environmentalists!  

By LetBuffaloRoam, 4-11-07 Let the wild buffalo roam! We should start in Montana , where the buffalo are trying to regain a foothold, but the cattle industry is strangling it. Enough! We need wild buffalo all over this land!  

By Bill, 4-11-07 Dream on...Where will the 'wild buffalo ' come from?? All of Turners are 'domestic livestock'!!!!!!. The buffalo in YNP even started from game farms in Texas and the Flathead valley. Let the 'domestic buffalo' roam right through towns, on the highways, in the cities, through peoples yards, can't have fences they wouldn't be 'wild buffalo' then they have to 'free roam'! Dream on.... Then we will have something to hunt.... maybe 1000 a year!!!!!!! I would like to hunt wild bison. We can all eat 'wild buffulo'. What will we eat if we are not all vegetarians like environmentalists? Wonder what a wolf taste like. What's the weather like back there in New York City ? Do you need wild buffalo in NYC,L.A. San Fan? Dream on ....dream on....dream on. FACT IS THERE ARE NO 'WILD BUFFALO '....HATE TO BE THE BEARER OF BAD NEWS! On the other hand, I really enjoy a good 'beef' rib steak ,thick, med well. No I don't like the 'wild buffalo dream'........ I like beef.

By Thomas, 4-11-07   Buffalo isn't bad, kind of like Muskox. Moose is better! 10,000 wolves can't be wrong! :-)

By Mel, 4-11-07  Cattle ranching in the west on private land is a mix of good, bad and the ugly. It is a business but the public can require that externalities are dealt with and I think they should be to a higher level than they are in many cases now. The impact of water is one of my biggest concerns Cattle ranching on public land at below market grazing rates and high usage rates that degrades the land's health and future capacties does deserve an even brighter spotlight to accelerate reforms and selectively reduce leases in spots where it is least suited and leasee usage has shown itself most harmful. Politically reform has proven very tough to pass. But maybe a new President in 2009 will achieve advancements.  

By Bill, 4-11-07 Yes, the 2009 election. Well John McCain has my vote. I guess the environmentalists squabble over Hillary and Obama. Can you picture either of them commander in chief? Can you imagine either looking after our public lands? OMG!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Source:  http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/wuerthner_we_ought_

not_grow_cows_in_dry_west/C396/L396/