In a previous post, I briefly discussed the impact wildfires are having on Western states this year, specifically the ranching communities and livestock grazing. We have the tools to prevent such catastrophic fires, but aren’t always allowed to employ those resources.
In recent decades, grazing has been slowly restricted in many of these areas by pressure to preserve ground for wildlife, or a mindset by activists that ‘natural’ means leaving ground untouched. Sometimes in the interest of wildlife conservation, or due to perceived conflict with recreation. Activist groups have no interest in hearing about the work ranches do to co-exist with wildlife or properly manage our resources. They simply want people off all the open land. Period.
This has placed pressure on our public land managers and federal agencies to restrict grazing and slowly erode grazing permits. Grazing permits have failed to be reissued, grazing allotments have been closed, and managing agencies have made it more difficult for livestock producers to work with their requirements. This all has a cascading effect on rural communities who depend on ranching economies and make up a majority of the vast Western states.
In reality, the environment here is best suited for grazing and is dependent on grazing animals to maintain healthy growth and balance between forested and open lands. Natural does not equate untouched. Grazing is healthy for the land, water, air, and ranchers are great stewards of managing these resources so we may all enjoy them.
The Western Governors’ Association agrees that our federal lands should and can be managed better. The WSA policy supports adaptive management of federal lands and encourages federal agencies be held accountable for their work with livestock grazers on public lands.
Science is on our side as well.
Take a quick search on google scholar and see what you’ll find. There are decades of studies and research from around the world that show managing forest and rangelands with grazing – which reduces fuel load and ensure healthy growth of plants – as a tool results in less intense wildfires with quicker recovery for the land, including plants and wildlife. These tools include the use of controlled burns, timber harvest and proper grazing.
Yes, you will find information displaying the harmful results of improper use of the land resulting in overgrazing, loss of biodiversity, and severe erosion of resources. Those people exist. The Dust Bowl occurred. Now we know better. We can’t change history, but we can learn from those experiences. And we have.
A majority of ranchers I’ve met in these Western states are doing great things with their grazing practices and monitoring the progress being made. This is not exclusive to those catering to niche markets with labels of grass-fed, holistic management, organic, natural, or any other special value-added program. These are conventional ranchers who are paying closer attention to their management practices, helping the land recover from scars of poor management in the past, turning our environment to a productive, healthy land with clean water, sustaining large wildlife populations (population management of which is a completely separate can of worms) and ensuring we have a better place for the next generation.
Just as we experience in conversations on the food front, a vocal minority from environmentalist groups are pushing their versions of conservation and ‘natural’ on federal agencies. This is based on emotion and not on science or experience on the ground. We have the tools and knowledge to manage these lands better and livestock are a part of that system. It’s kind of like letting a New York Times writer pen a scathing, false report attacking an academic researcher doing his job in the field of biotechnology and not even recognizing that “herbacide” is not a word. Let’s allow the people on the ground with knowledge, background and experience manage these lands with the tools we have available, not let it be driven by emotional activism.