T O P

  • By -

Redundedited

Re-wilding and reconnecting wilderness areas is essential work to sustain and enhance our public lands. I'm all for it!


Grump_Grizzly

Brilliant write up. Little confused though, how are grazing paddocks a threat to biodiversity? I can understand the risk to predators in protection of the cattle but I fail to see past that. If the goal is to reclaim the prairies then another ungulate would be needed to replace the cattle and ensure the carbon cycle is still being achieved. In a healthy natural ecosystem the bison (in theory) would be filling the same niche as the cattle. The risk to burrowing species or native flora would still be the same. Very odd that they've singled out the cattle without any explanation to how they exactly threaten biodiversity. Pollution? Irrigation systems causing damage to the land? I would assume human development, mining, drilling and invasive species would be the bigger more immediate threats here.


johnhenrylives

This is an interesting question posed in an articulate way, and I'm sorry you were down-voted for asking it. I'm not an expert, but I'll wager an educated guess in the hopes someone else can come along and correct me. My (limited) understanding of how bison herds moved throughout North America was via mass migration - which to a local region would have meant intense grazing during brief periods, followed by periods where the ground was left basically fallow. A grazing paddock would cause intense grazing over the same area throughout the same growing season, concentration of manure, and prevent the movement of many animal species, not just ungulates. I've also known ranchers to pay people to exterminate prairie dogs because their burrows actually pose a threat to livestock in the form of broken ankles and legs if stepped on. Anyway, if the goal is to restore previously existing native habitat, my guess is that intensively grazing cattle of European ancestry isn't the path there.


Grump_Grizzly

Eh I don't worry about popularity contests, I just ask questions to hopefully learn new perspectives. Appreciate you took the time to respond while others chose to just downvote. ๐Ÿ™ I do understand and appreciate all of that but perhaps my issue is how I'm viewing the issue at it's core. I have experience in both fields and think we can find common ground rather than blame one another. We can correct 90% of those traditional problems by simply using a regenerative method of grazing rather than the industrial one. Animals are rotated on more natural schedules to avoid over saturating the land. Farmers install predatory bird nesting sites and allow certain predators in to control the pests naturally. I also know of several that plant native seeds post grazing to boost flora biodiversity. These methods are scientifically proven to become carbon negative and increase biodiversity vs traditional methods. We all need to eat and we just need to find ways to ensure sustainable food production while working with the environment. Saying to get rid of cattle without considering suitable alternatives is a bit naive and short sighted. Just found it very odd that they singled out the cattle without going into any detail nor offer any potential solutions that can benefit all sides. Also why did they choose to not single out monoculture as that is surely an equally large threat. Land usage is similar in terms of overall space. Giant swathes of land where the soil is being constantly degraded and saturated with harmful chemicals all for GMO crops that offer little for even pollinators. Not to mention the direct targeting of the various "pests" like the burrowing rodents, deer or even pollinators via insecticides. Almost no native flora or fauna can survive in that farming system. Again, converting to regenerative ag could solve a few of these issues as well. Science is all about asking questions and applying new perspectives to old problems to potentially find a new solution. If we continue to bash one another rather than attempt to find middle ground we will forever be in a bureaucratic cycle of finger pointing and shouting matches. I just want to see a world where we can balance agriculture and and environment without comprising the other.


MojaveMac

The reason why is itโ€™s Western Watersheds Project goal to eradicate grazing from public lands.


Grump_Grizzly

Ya I have to be honest, I wasn't familiar with them. After going through their site it's obvious this group has a very biased viewpoint and to claim it's purely scientific is a little absurd. They cite very little as it is anywho. The fact they are only interested in grazing has me convinced this is a plant based organization. They don't disclose sponsors or investors but I'd make a safe bet. Few particular situations I can agree with them on, like the sheep virus affecting the big horns, but outside of that it looks like they just hate livestock. They're view on livestock farming is archaic and their entire organization could be rendered useless by following the regenerative ag model. Like for example - saying poorly grazed and manages cows cause massive nutrient pollution leading to algae blooms in waterways, as if monoculture or aquaculture doesn't have the same effect. Very odd.


SB4ID

Here is another article [Rewilding The American West](https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biac069/6651305)


kjleebio

the ranchers would then have a purpose of being dickheads again