A number of years ago Bay Nature published a couple of pieces promoting livestock production in California. I responded with a critique of the articles. I continue to hear the same arguments today with various individuals and organizations promoting “regenerative” grazing, “grass fed beef” and livestock as a “tool” to reduce wildfires, among other alleged benefits. I am reposting the commentary I sent to Bay Nature below since the debate continues today.
Dairy cows compact soil at Point Reyes National Seashore, California Photo George Wuerthner
Both the article “Range of Possibilities” by Kelly Cash, followed up by the pro-livestock piece “Public Lands Need Cattle to Meet Conservation Goals,” by Sheila Barry imply that livestock production is an overall positive activity for California public lands and wildlife.
I have been following livestock issues for decades and heard many times all the assertions and arguments for why livestock production is a “benefit.” Usually the presumed benefits—if they are real in the first place–can only be realized in small areas and/or result in excessive widespread collateral damage to wildlife, soils, water, and vegetation.
No grass, no fire. But nothing else either. No hiding cover for small rodents, ground nesting birds, amphibians hiding cover, or even plants. Point Reyes National Seashore. Photo George Wuerthner
For instance the idea that grazing can reduce wildfires usually requires denuding a landscape so severely it looks like a putting green. However at that point the grass is so short there is little for other wildlife to eat, and no hiding cover for small mammals or birds to avoid predators, not to mention the high density of livestock needed to accomplish this feat compacts soils reducing water infiltration.
While one may point to an occasional situation where livestock production may benefit a particular species in unusual circumstances, on the whole livestock-induced habitat changes are involved in the imperilment of hundreds of species. Notwithstanding that there are often multiple factors contributing to any species demise, one can frequently draw a direct link to livestock production as a major factor in many California species decline.
No hiding cover for sage grouse in this sagebrush steppe habitat. Photo George Wuerthner
For instance, one reason cited for sage grouse population decline across its range is predation. However, one must ask why are the sage grouse vulnerable to predators? A recent study concluded that a minimum of 7 inches and ideally at least 10 inches of residual grass is needed for grouse to hide from predators. Yet in much of the sage grouse’s habitat, livestock grazing has reduced grass height far below these limits.
Competition for forage between livestock and desert tortoise is one reason for the species decline. Photo NPS
Besides sage grouse, many other species have suffered population declines due to livestock induced habitat changes or merely forage competition. For instance, the Mohave ground squirrel has suffered from the spread of annual grasses and decline in shrubs in its habitat in part due to livestock grazing. And in times of drought, the ground squirrel endures forage competition with livestock. The same competition with livestock for scarce green vegetation is also a factor in the decline of the desert tortoise.
Lahontan cutthroat trout is only one of many fish species endangered in part due to the loss of quality raparian habitat. Photo George Wuerthner
Livestock trampling and cropping of vegetation is the primary cause of degradation of the lush riparian corridors along rivers and stream that are critical habitat to some 70-80 percent of the state’s wildlife, harming species like the Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwest Willow Flycatcher and Yellow Cuckoo, plus amphibians like the Oregon spotted frog and fish like the Lahontan cutthroat trout.
The majority of water consumed in California is used for irrigated livestock forage production. Here alfalfa is being grown in the Imperial Valley. Photo George Wuerthner
The diversion of water from rivers to grow irrigated hay, alfalfa and other livestock forage crops, as well as the dams that block rivers to create irrigation water storage, are both detrimental to aquatic ecosystems and many fish, such as salmon and steelhead. And despite swimming pools, golf courses, and large urban centers, the largest consumer of water in California is irrigated livestock forage. Even most grass-fed beef cattle rely to some extent on hay or irrigated pasture for their sustenance.
The poisoning of predators like coyotes and the now extirpated wolf as well as many ground squirrels is yet another well-documented impact of livestock production.
Livestock are also one of the major sources of water pollution on many public as well as private rangelands.
Water pollution from cattle at Elkhorn Slough, California. Photo George Wuerthner
Lest we forget, livestock are among the main sources of methane, a major greenhouse gas contributing to global climate change.
This is only the beginning of a litany of negative effects of livestock production.
Nearly all of the examples of improved conditions for the land, including the Bay Nature piece, focus on a handful of particularly motivated ranchers who often have outside financial resources that permit them to REDUCE livestock impacts. A reduction in impacts is not the same as no impact.
For example in the “Range of Possibilities” article, the author noted that “Point Blue documented a 72 percent increase in native perennial grasses on Tom Kat Ranch after the landowners changed their cattle grazing to give the land more rest.” The article then notes this resulted in a benefit for wildlife and plants, as well as greater water infiltration.
However, what they documented was a reduction (i.e. more rest from livestock) in livestock grazing impacts.
This raises the natural question, how much greater improvement might we see if there were no livestock grazing? In the example mentioned above, the proponents of ranching provide no comparison with a non-grazed pasture where you might find even greater habitat recovery for birds and wildlife, and more water infiltration.
It’s like saying that someone who smoked three packs of cigarettes a day and reduced their smoking to one pack a day saw an “improvement” in their health. While the finding that smoking less cigarettes does improve one’s health, it is disingenuous to leave a person with the impression that cigarettes are the reason for improvement in health or to neglect to raise the notion that no cigarettes might lead to even greater health and financial benefits. Similarly in most situations, the removal of livestock provides the greatest benefits to wildlife and the land.
The pro-livestock advocates featured in these articles used similar selective information to create the illusion that livestock production is a positive influence upon California’s landscape.
To give one example of how the statements in these articles consist of partial truth, take Sheila Barry’s comment that “Not a single documented plant or animal in California has gone extinct due to livestock grazing.”
In reality there have been very few species extinctions in the entire West. Only one California vertebrate, the Santa Barbara song sparrow, is completely extinct, though a number of species like the grizzly bear and wolf have been extirpated from California. So her statement without context leaves one with the impression that livestock production has had few impacts on native species.
Nevertheless, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of plants and animals that are declining in numbers, and in jeopardy due to direct and indirect damage from livestock production across the West, including in California.
Even where there are documented benefits of livestock for a species, it is usually due to the overall negative losses of suitable habitat resulting from on-going and past livestock production. For instance, Sheila Barry mentions the California red-legged frog as a species benefiting from livestock water troughs and stock ponds.
Proponent of livestock grazing often suggest that stock water troughs and stock ponds are beneficial to wildlife. But the reason many species may depend on these artifical water sources is because livestock have damaged the natural sources. Not to mention such water sources lack hiding cover, making any wildlife using them more vulnerable to predation, so they might even act as a “predator pit.” Photo George Wuerthner
However, the reason frogs must resort to these artificial features like stock ponds is because so much of their native wetland and riparian habitat has been degraded, diminished, and destroyed by livestock. Livestock trampling of riparian areas has damaged much of the native streamside cover used by the frogs to hide from predators, as well as reducing habitat for the insects that are the primary food of this amphibian. Loss of riparian vegetation and stream-side vegetation also results in higher water temperatures that can benefit non-native bull frogs which compete with and even eat the red-legged frog. The soil erosion resulting from livestock fills streams with sediments, reducing the depth of pool habitat to the detriment of the frog. Bank trampling reduces the undercut channels that frogs use to hide from predators. The deposition of manure and urine by streams can cause nutrition loading which can increase bacteria harmful to frogs. Livestock trampling of egg masses and larvae is also a problem in some instances.
In the absence of livestock-caused habitat degradation, the red-legged frog might not have to resort to human built features like stock ponds for its survival.
Finding a few circumstances where livestock benefits the environment is somewhat analogous to suggesting that radiation benefits human health because it can be used to kill cancer cells, and then implying radiation is a good thing for people by ignoring the collateral damage to the body.
One of the “benefits” currently in vogue is that idea that grass-fed beef can reduce global warming through carbon sequestration. The theory is that grazing grasses causes them to produce more carbon biomass (roots) which is stored in the soil. However, this only occurs if there is significant water for additional plant growth—a problem in arid western rangelands.
Plus the accumulation of carbon in soils—if it even occurs—is slow, taking decades or centuries. And if grazing causes any soil erosion or replacement of native perennial grasses with annual exotics—a common problem in California ranchlands, there is a net loss of carbon. Many studies in arid rangelands also demonstrate greater soil carbon accumulation where livestock grazing is completely excluded.
Furthermore, the slow accumulation of soil carbon – again, if it even occurs — with livestock grazing must be balanced against the current methane emissions resulting from cattle during digestion. Because grass is more difficult to digest and lower in nutrient content than other forage like corn fed to CAFO livestock, grass-fed animals require additional months of growth before they reach slaughter weights, emitting methane the entire time.
CAFO (confined animal farm operation) have many environmental impacts, but grass fed beef has its own impacts including greater methane emissions per animal’s life. Photo George Wuerthner
This is not to suggest CAFO-produced livestock are better, but to note that grass-fed beef has its own set of environmental problems.
While better livestock management might be a worthwhile goal on private rangelands, it is questionable if any livestock production is worth the costs to public resources on public rangelands. If full cost accounting is done of all the ecological as well as economic costs of subsidized livestock grazing, it is clear that livestock production has no place on our public rangelands.
B
Comments
If there is damage to the land(the bare ground in the photos)the cows need to be moved more frequently. My guess is that these cows are only changing their location if they want to. That is not regenerative grazing.
I suggest you read the book Sacred Cow.
There is no such thing as “regenerative grazing” when it comes to non-native animals like cattle and domestic goats & sheep. These animals are all ecologically harmful by their mere existence. I suppose that cattle could be grazed in an ecologically beneficial manner in the plains states where the bison once roamed, but there’s no financially viable way to do that.
No such thing as “regenerative grazing” in the western U.S. This is nothing but rancher propaganda.
There’s no such thing as “regenerative grazing” in the western U.S., at least not the way in which ranchers mean it. It would be regenerative if done by NATIVE ungulates with the NATIVE grasses restored, the native predators restored, and no fences, but that’s about it.
All the facts that George Wuerthner lists here are true and correct. Wuerthner is an expert in this area, and I often recommend his book Welfare Ranching to show people just how harmful cattle grazing is in the western U.S. (Another excellent book on this subject is Sacred Cows at the Public Trough.) The problems caused by cattle grazing are too numerous to list, and even more so in arid regions like the western U.S. or where forests are cut down for grazing. Domestic livestock grazing should not be allowed in the west at all, but removing them from public lands would be a good start.
I’ve been advocating a beef boycott for decades, but I don’t see any environmental groups doing so — the Center for Biological Diversity at least raises this issue and advocates that people eat a plant-based diet — but so few people even know about this issue that there is no movement toward even decreasing the amount of beef eaten, let alone eliminating it. Kudos to people like George Wuerthner for continually raising this issue, maybe someday the general public will get a clue and stop eating beef or at least greatly reduce their consumption of it.
BTW, the Pt. Reyes/cattle issue is especially egregious and outrageous. The ranchers at Pt. Reyes were paid a lot of money decades ago for their land, but they have remained there as tenants of the U.S. government. The reason for paying the ranchers was to get the cattle out and create a National Seashore as part of the National Parks system. The Seashore was technically created, but the cattle continue to do massive harm, even causing the deaths of the native elk and causing massive water pollution. The supposedly pro-environmental representative in Congress, Jared Huffman, has strongly supported the ranchers, and even threatened legislation as a way to keep them there.
I think the ‘don’t eat beef’ argument gets lost in granularity, as Ralph has commented on in a different thread. Having ‘some’ cows isn’t bad, having cows everywhere because we subsidize the industry is the problem. Having cows on an island where they consume rare ingenious plants is a tragedy, like in the Azores or Hawaii. Getting cows off federal land where the AUMs are cheap would be a good start. I understand why people would advocate for less beef (diet, ecosystem destruction, lots of corruption, killing/removal of indigenous persons, etc) but just saying “don’t eat beef” isn’t gonna get the job done. Cows aren’t going anywhere, the better strategy is to pick where they WON’T be and work towards that goal. Western cattle are a tiny percentage of the national beef market, but get an inordinate amount of subsidies. Stop the subsidies and let prices self-adjust (and please raise the AUMs to at least state levels). I don’t want to tell people what to raise on their private land (unless they are applying biosolids, etc. and not telling anyone) but at least charge a decent rate for cattle so it’s not so obvious that it’s subsidized ona national level.
I’m sure that people used to say that slavery wasn’t going anywhere too. That’s a defeatist attitude.
Furthermore, I totally disagree that “some” cows are OK. How is some destruction of the natural world and killing of the life there OK? Cows are not naturally-evolved animals, and are thus not native anywhere. Therefore, they do harm wherever they are, if for no other reason that they take food from native ungulates. But let’s stick to the harm they do in the arid west. As George and others have clearly shown, in a nutshell cows have turned the western grasslands into deserts, again by their mere presence. (Sacred Cows at the Public Trough is also an excellent book on this subject.) Too many cows is more than zero, and even more so out here.
Getting cattle off public lands is a starting point, not the end goal. Like the Natives here, I don’t recognize the concept of land ownership, and the land and ecosystems, along with the life there, take precedence over things like money and supposed ownership of land. As the name of the group says, Earth First!
Isn’t manure “biosolids”?
Yes but so are the pharmaceuticals, heavy metals and other products that are processed. You’d assume just manure but it’s other stuff too
Thank you for reprinting your article Mr. Wuerther. This should be more widely distributed.
When I visited the National Grasslands in Kansas several years ago, there was a marked difference between areas grazed by buffalo and those where cattle were brought in to graze during spring and early summer. As you point out, limiting cattle grazing only diminishes the damage to native species. The only way to restore our Western grasslands is to end all grazing leases on public lands
Although I realize this is not going to change your mind, George, I nevertheless have to point out what you continue to miss in these sorts of articles.
Taking your most recent one, from the top:
Your first picture, showing a degraded landscape would NEVER be from a regenerative farm. Very misleading. Regenerative grazing allows land to recover, just as the passage of the buffalo did before there were fences. Any farm or ranch that treats their soil as you show in the picture is misleading to the max in terms of your argument against regenerative.
You suggest that grazing might benefit some species and but not enough. But explain then why The Audubon Society now puts their seal of approval on grass-fed beef in supermarkets in 18 states with the label: No Cows, No Grass, No Birds?
Regenerative only lives up to its promise if it continually manages land according to its ecosystem needs. Susie Creek watershed in NE Nevada is a prime example of restoration with appropriate management of cattle and the addition of beaver.
https://www.tu.org/magazine/science/restoring-streamside-vegetation-using-grazing-and-beavers/
Destroy soil and you destroy its ability to store water when it rains. Rebuild soil, using appropriately managed grazing and you mitigate drought. Don’t complain about water usage, complain about industrial ag and how it causes drought! https://www.nrdc.org/experts/arohi-sharma/how-regenerative-agriculture-can-mitigate-drought
Your sentence: Livestock are one of the major sources of water pollution. Wrong. Regenerative grazing does NOT cause water pollution because living soil stores water, but you seem to want to lump everything in together to further your diatribe.
6.The methane story was started by the fracking industry and people like Bill Gates, who would woo all of us to switching to his fake meat products, beginning about a decade ago. He has invested millions into selling us the “Evil Meat, Evil Cattle” story, while he relentlessly buys more and more land across the country–and is now the biggest landowner, ready to farm industrially to grow his investments. Meanwhile, scientists now know that methane from cattle is a “biogenic” cycle in relationship with microbes in the soil. What is bad is the methane that comes from the fossil fuel industry, which is not in a cycle, but which is a constant source of emissions polluting the atmosphere.
In your Tom Kat Ranch put-down, you seem not to realize that
“reduction in livestock impacts” is the essence of regenerative grazing. It mimics nature: Graze, Rest. Graze, Rest. Never graze if your decision destroys soil. And you ask how much improvement might there be if no grazing? Depends on whether the soil you want to “rest” is healthy. If it’s not, it needs restoring, according to the natural symbiotic relationship between grasslands and ruminants.
You say hundreds of plants and animals are declining in numbers across the West. Well, about 50% of the planet is turning to desert and that’s why. Because the soils have been destroyed. And they do NOT regenerate on their own without microbial impact from ruminants, if they were originally grasslands.
You dismiss the “good examples” of where livestock benefits the environment and negatively blanket statement the rest, where managed grazing is not being implemented.
Bottom line: There is very little likelihood that the Federal government is going to release millions of acres of rangeland, to be returned to the wild, as much as you might wish. Furthermore, so much of those lands are badly degraded that they will continue turning to desert without restoration. Which should be subsidized by the Feds–but only if done correctly. Why? The biggest reason is that we are looking at the death of the planet unless we change where we put our money, choosing methods that are scientifically proven and are repairing soils all over the world. Savory.global
Hopefully no one here buys your pro-rancher BS. I’ve confirmed that the science hasn’t changed since I campaigned against cattle grazing in the 1980s, and that science shows that there is no way to graze cattle in the western U.S. that doesn’t cause great ecological harm. Your comments are just rancher propaganda.
https://www.audubon.org/news/national-audubon-society-announces-largest-market-based-regenerative-grasslands
April 6, 2021, New York, NY – The National Audubon Society today announced the largest market-based regenerative grasslands partnership in the U.S. with Panorama Organic Grass-Fed Meats®, the nation’s largest producer of 100 percent grass-fed, grass-finished certified organic beef. The commitment will impact one million acres of certified organic U.S. grasslands and create individual habitat management plans with every family rancher in the Panorama Organic network through Audubon’s Conservation Ranching Initiative.
“With 95 percent of grassland birds living on cattle ranches in the United States, and the bird population in steep decline, the connection between cows, birds and land conservation is a priority for Panorama Organic and the National Audubon Society,” said Kay Cornelius, general manager of Panorama Organic. In addition, Cornelius announced that Panorama Organic will further this commitment by doubling the rancher network, with a goal of two million total acres to be certified by 2030….Panorama Organic’s 34 independent family ranchers span eight states and nearly one million acres of USDA Certified Organic grasslands in California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Colorado and Wisconsin.
Read on, Jeff. Please.
I can only ask you to drive the West to see the terrible damage caused by cattle. To see how the sage steppe has been ground up to grow food for cattle. How all the upland water on public lands is impounded for cattle. How wealthy ranchers take over state governments to further their economic goals. Look at the politics in Idaho to see that conflict of interest corruption.
Red meat is actually not healthy whether or not it is eating grass grown and watered for them.
Idaho has 4 million pounds per day of cattle manure polluting the Snake River aquifer which has also polluted the Snake River, rendering it unsafe to even boat in.
Cattle is a polluting agri-business.
Hola y buen día Mr Wuerthner,
we are a member of Dana’s “list-server” from the Methow Valley & saw your article there.
We lived in the Methow for many years and before that CA & are very aware of the cattle grazing issue.
as a result we stopped eating all industrially sourced meat back in the late 1980s upon reading John Robbin’s book Diet for a Now America detailing the issues of factory farming.
Subsequently also became a member of North Coast & South Bay Earth First! during Redwood Summer.
unfortunately, we note, along with the other commenters here, that you are not actually addressing “regenerative farming” methods.
None of your pictures are from anything even close to regenerative ranching.
We learned of these methods thru Permaculture Design, PCD, which lead us to Dr Alan Savory’s methods.
As Earth Firster!s, we agree emphatically that uncontrolled grazing needs to stop & all grazing on public lands must either end or be strictly monitored with only PCD & Dr Savory’s methods allowed.
Please review Savory’s methods and get back to us all.
https://savory.global/
Savory has apparently restored many hundreds or thousands of acres of native savanna and forest in Zimbabwe where he perfected his methods.
His methods by default employ PCD Principles which when employed in human disturbed areas help improve biodiversity.
we would ONLY advocate for cattle grazing when Savory/PCD methods are employed and enforced.
We are aware of your years of work, having lived in the Methow & knowing Dana, however you seem to have missed the point of “regenerative farming”. 😏
Also we suggest to Dr Savory that you also take a Permaculture Design Course & become a trained PCD teacher to add further credence to your work. You would plug in very well to the global PCD network…
By our estimates PCD is humanity’s largest grassroots network that you never heard of! 😇
Create a Great Future.
Turtle of CA Earth First!
Savory is a rancher and his claims are BS. What don’t you get about a complete conflict of interests here?
“Regenerative farming” with non-native animals like cattle is nothing but a scam. If you want to know the truth about the great harms that unnatural large animals like cattle do, look to wildlife biologists and ecologists who work for environmental groups like Center for Biological Diversity, not to ranchers who have a great incentive to lie to you.
When I was a campaigner in Earth First! in the 1980s, no one would have even listened to this utter BS. About half of us, including me, were opposed to all agriculture, because it’s totally unnatural and has caused massive destruction of our planet and killing of species over the past 10,000 or so years. And animal agriculture, like ranching, is the worst of this.
I read several articles regarding studies of Savory’s
attempts to prove his theory – years ago. As I recall, his theory didnt work out in Africa where he tried it. I’m sure regenerative grazing might work but it sounds very labor intensive – that in itself would likely not cause livestock producers to be enthusiastic about it. Using a grazing allotment, they can turn their livestock out on public land or forests at only $1.35/month for each cow/calf even though the grazing might be in an arid area – a less expensive & easier way of feeding them up – that might matter more. They have the Fed agencies removing/killing any predator that threatens their animals AND get to claim the allotment as collateral for their loans. And this is only a very small segment of the livestock industry – only 2-3% of what is produced. Then there is the matter of livestock feed which takes up so much of our agricultural areas.
There really is no great benefit from cattle’s manure – with their several stomachs – what comes out doesnt return plant life or seeds to the environment as many other species do. And the damage done to riparian areas – polluting the water, eating the brush that shades the creeks/streams? Cattle will hang in these areas – where other species – horses etc – will drink & move on.
Dear Maggie,
Savory first shared his TED talk message about desertification in 2014–and it was followed by a blizzard of dismissive papers by academics and biased publication where there was zero knowledge about soil or regenerative agriculture. Since that time, Savory has been vindicated countless times, to the extent that General Mills is investing a million+ to shift its organic products to regenerative.
There is a lot of information to be found on YouTube where you can see for yourself that ranchers that manage grazing have more time, make more money, grow soil that handles drought better than industrially grazed land, and improve ecosystems dramatically. This article: “These cattle ranchers are raising better beef, spending less — and reducing carbon emissions”
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/19/regenerative-ranching-changing-how-cattle-graze-reducing-emissions.html is a prime example of the growing popularity of this approach.
For the rest of your comment — I included a link as an example of a degraded riparian area restored by the management of cattle plus the addition of beaver.
The biggest problem with George’s article and any negative comment about regenerative grazing — including attempts to debunk Savory, is that his main message is not about cattle, it’s about DESERTIFICATION.
You must be aware of lakes and rivers drying up all over the world. We are approaching a time when there will be no crops for millions because of lack of water, caused by dead soil as a result of industrial agriculture and bad grazing practices.
Nothing–and I mean, Nothing! is more important to focus on than this. Please read what I wrote and consider learning more. Your concerns are important but I hope you will be interested in going deeper.
“Dan Probert, a rancher in Oregon and the marketing director for ranching collective Country Natural Beef, explains that regenerative cattle ranching involves herding cattle from one paddock to another on a regular, almost daily basis. The cattle eat the grass in the pasture where they are grazing, cutting it down low, then move on. Each paddock they cut down has a significant portion of time to rest and restore so it can grow back.
“Those cattle are bunched, they’re kept pretty densely herded, and then they’re moved sometimes twice in one day. And then that land is left to rest and recover for a full year before the animals are back,” Probert told CNBC.”
As I wrote in my earlier comment – this is very labor intensive! But in the West on grazing allotments – I really doubt this would be productive for all the reasons in the above article.
The only way that anything like this would work to restore the land to its natural condition by using non-native animals like cattle — which should be the goal; I don’t know what they mean by “regenerative,” but it sounds like a rancher scam to me — would be to emulate the natural conditions before the colonizers (or in some cases even the Natives) changed the ecology. For large ungulates, the only similar animals were tiny remnant bison herds who somehow wandered into and across the Rocky Mountains. So sure, if ranchers were willing to keep their herds to no greater than 7-11 head, move them around constantly, have no fencing, allow predation by native predators, and replace the non-native grasses that they’ve caused with native grasses and plants, then sure it could work. But this is not financially viable, so it’s not going to happen. Instead, we get the Savory scam and propagandists promoting it.
Check out the American Prairie in Eastern Montana. They are trying to use best available land practices to raise buffalo. The political and social blowback and vilification they are getting from conventional ranchers in Montana is appalling! Apparently some Montana ranchers don’t think other interests should have property rights or be eligible for grazing permits. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I would like to see cattle off public land, but I don’t think this is going to happen. I live in a small Montana town where the attitude is entitlement to public land for raising cattle. Conventional agricultural interests have the political and cultural power to do whatever they want in Montana! Encouraging and rewarding better land stewardship is better than the status quo.
https://www.americanprairie.org/
I’m sure that slave-owners felt entitled to own slaves too, and that people said that abolition of slavery would never happen. You have to work for what you believe in in order to have a chance of getting anything good. If you just give up and settle for a compromise that doesn’t fix the problem — how about if we put a limit on the number of slaves you can own? — then you never get a good result. If you keep fighting, you never know what might happen, regardless of how unlikely a good result seems. I’ve fought ranchers and won (locally), and I fully understand what we’re up against, but that doesn’t mean we should give up and just accept a lesser evil.
Jeff,
I don’t view this situation as involving either-or/binary choices. You can litigate and legislate to get cattle off public land. Individuals, organizations or land trusts can also purchase land as an act of restoration. At the same time, support organizations that want to graze native buffalo instead of cows. You can do both: Have the ultimate goal of cattle only on private land, but encourage better land practices that can impact the land now.
You said that you “don’t think [getting cattle off public land] is going to happen.” Well, I ran a campaign to get cattle out of a state park near where I live, and it was successful. What you said is a defeatist attitude.
Humans have bad feelings and attitudes toward the natural world and the life there and that’s what needs to be changed. This is a long-term goal, because these bad feelings and attitudes have been building for millennia. While we’re fighting for immediate Band Aid solutions to specific symptoms, we also need to be trying to win people’s hearts & minds to fix the root problems. Merely fighting individual environmental battles is being sucked into a whack-a-mole situation that will never be successful.
To be clear, native bison are exponentially better than non-native unnatural cattle, but the big issue is animal agriculture v. wild animals. “Raising” bison is just more animal agriculture, which is very ecologically & environmentally harmful and bad for animals (not to mention that wild meat is healthier). If you want to restore the native prairie, grasslands, and marshes, the bison need to roam wild, not be “raised” and fenced, and they need to be subject to native predators so they move around adequately and don’t harm the land or riparian areas. I’m not sure what this project is doing, but saying that they’re “raising” bison raises a huge red flag.
Better is obviously better than worse, but I’d much rather that humans stop ALL unnatural/harmful activities. Cattle are not naturally evolved animals, let alone native anywhere. Therefore, they do harm by their mere existence and presence. Therefore, I want them removed from all land. Getting them off public land is just a start. I realize that this is also a very long-term goal that will almost certainly not be achieved anywhere near the end of my life, but it’s what’s worth fighting for.
Rondi,
Regenerative farming is akin to perpetual motion schemes – they look good on paper and many people have been snookered by the promises but it just doesn’t work in the real world. Here is a rigorous study (8/31/2022) regarding water pollution from cattle ranching at Point Reyes National Seashore. It is difficult to understand how regenerative farming could suddenly change everything, protect the seashore from pollution, the elk from government shooters and starving and thirsting behind fences, the fisheries, other marine life and human visitors from bovine feces and urine. It just works against physical laws and reality.
Rondi,
Here is the study for your edification.
https://seaturtles.org/rigorous-new-study-finds-significant-water-pollution-from-cattle-ranching-at-point-reyes-national-seashore/
The Point Reyes situation is especially outrageous (I did some work on it). The ranchers were paid for their land long ago and were supposed to get out, but the government agreed to let them stay temporarily as renters. Well, “temporary” turned into permanent, and not only have they ruined the land, but they’re now killing native elk to aid their cattle.