The article below is an attempt to summarize the book, Welfare Ranching, in the hope that the information can used by those concerned with this issue. The book itself footnotes its sources.

To describe certain land as rangeland or farmland is to indicate its present use, and presumes that the current use is the best use for that land. The questions raised by this book include:

1) Can productive use be made of public lands, while protecting public trust values of clean water, clean air, and wildlife?

2) What is the best use for each of the public lands, and how is it determined?

3) Are grazing and the associated forage crops the best use for this land?

4) What is the benchmark for restoration of degraded lands, and how will this restoration be accomplished?

In our local area of Nevada County, public land grazing is occurring in the potential wilderness areas of Grouse Lakes and Castle Peak. The seventeen thousand acres of the Grouse Lakes roadless area is subject to a grazing allotment known as Canyon Creek that essentially matches the roadless area. One hundred thirty cow/calf pairs use this allotment, and graze freely among the wetlands, riparian areas and lakes. Another sixty-nine cow/calf pairs graze the English Meadows area, portions of which are proposed for wilderness. Backpackers are legitimately required to camp away from borders of streams and lakes, yet cows freely feed and urinate and defecate in these same waterways.

The National Public Lands Grazing Campaign (www.publiclandsranching.org) is a multi-year, multi-organizational strategy to end abusive livestock grazing on the nations' public land. The campaign seeks to (a) educate the American people of the ecological, economic and fiscal impacts of public lands livestock grazing; (b) fully enforce environmental law to end abusive livestock grazing and/or hold public grazing permittees accountable for their activity, and (c) amend federal law to allow the voluntary retirement of federal grazing permits for $175 per animal unit month, or an average of $13,45 per acre.

Welfare Ranching

The Subsidized Destruction of the American West

Published by Island Press

Foreward by Doug Tompkins

Edited by George Wuerthner and Mollie Matteson

Excerpts and summary by Don Rivenes

Public land

There are 750 million acres of land in the eleven western states, with 318 million acres of public land under Federal control. Of these Federal lands, 260 million acres are leased for grazing. One hundred eight-four million acres of private land are used for grazing. 89% of the cattle producers are in the East. 3% of livestock feed is supplied by public lands nationwide and 18% in the west. 16% of permittees on BLM lands control 76% of the animal unit months. Of 109 public wildlife refuges, 103 allow livestock grazing.

Beef - Can the world afford its luxury?

At first it seems there is such a thing as a free lunch. The rural landowner obtains a cow and a bull, lets them roam around his land, and every year there is a dividend in the form of a calf. Nature's bounty. Natural Interest income. And yet, further analysis shows the cost of this benefit.

The anatomy of a cow

Cattle evolved in moist Eurasian woodlands and are a non-native species that was introduced into the Americas by the white settlers. Cattle are poorly adapted to dry western rangeland, a single cow requiring 15-20 gallons of water per day. In the West it may require 250 acres to feed one cow for a year, while in Missouri or Mississippi it requires only one acre. A cow excretes between 30 and 49 gallons of urine per day and between 29 and 70 pounds of feces per day, containing 5.4 billion fecal coliform bacteria and 31 billion fecal streptococcus bacteria. Other organisms carried include Cryptosporidium, Giardia and Listeria.

Cattle display traits of woodland-dwelling animals: small groups, territorial fidelity, selective feeding strategies, and reduced seasonal adaptations. They were bred to maximize weight gain, with reduced mobility. As a result, in the west, cattle will overgraze one location for weeks, prefer riparian areas because of low efficiency of water use, require extra feed in the winter, and are unable to fight off predators. As a result, ranchers reduce other herbivores and eliminate predators, leaving a degraded ecosystem.

Range-fed beef is considered politically correct, but cattle on the open range lead short and difficult lives. They are left unattended for months at a time, subject to injury, predation, poisonous plants, thirst and starvation. If a rancher puts cattle on overgrazed land and some cattle starve to death, instead of charging him with animal abuse, the government gives him emergency assistance.

History of cattle and bison

Although cattle and bison have a common evolutionary ancestor, there are many dissimilarities. Bison first arrived in the Americas over the Bering land bridge at the same time as the first humans, and quickly adapted to the available native forage in the plains and savannas. In the Pleistocene, expansion of steppe areas caused bison to increase body size, expand their digestive systems to process low-quality forage, develop strong herding instincts, and higher productivity and maturation rates. Their hump and muscular front quarters allow long distance travel and speed to seek vegetation and to fight off predators, and ultimately they serve as soil replenishment. Compared to cattle, bison feed for a few days and move on, spend little time in riparian areas preferring drier forage, use steeper slopes and can plow through deep snow to survive in the winter. Bulls are a higher proportion of a herd, which allows a more uniform grazing pattern.

Colonists brought cattle with them along with the ethos of the herding societies of early Europe - cattle rustling, range wars, weapons, etc. Beef consumption comes from Europe with its religious, economic (cattle was wealth and money), and social significance (Real men eat beef). In Europe, forests were cleared for the upper class consumption of beef. The cowboy is seen as the idealized American, a national symbol reflective of American cultural values. In reality, cowboys were hired hands by ranchers, who were part of wealthy families. Today 10% of ranches control 74% of the public lands forage. Open-range ranching is the least intensive form of agriculture in the most remote areas, but is the first step in domestication of the landscape.

There were 21 million cattle on western lands in the 1870s, when a severe winter followed by a drought decimated herds. Some researchers blame overgrazing for the inability of plants to survive the drought. This event led to discussions of regulation (theory of the commons) that led to the Taylor Grazing Act. This created a system of grazing permits based on land ownership, water rights, scale of operation and previous use, which stabilized the cattle population. Still, 70% of western land is grazed under the assumption that this is the best use. This ignores its impact on wildlife and riparian lands.

The Dust Bowl caused by drought, overgrazing and little crop rotation created the conditions for the beginning of subsidies. Cattlemen were paid to reduce the number of existing animals, without stopping the bearing of new calves. The 9 million cattle were used for relief food, or just buried if too emaciated. After all the attempted reform, the NRDC estimates that over 100 million acres is still in unsatisfactory condition.

The Organic Act of 1917 forbade sheep in National Parks, and limited grazing to isolated regions. After many negotiations, the Wilderness Act as modified by the Colorado Grazing language grandfathered in grazing, and allows its management including motorized equipment. But some new wilderness areas are explicitly excluding grazing.

Scientific Study

One must be careful to make sure you compare grazed areas to areas that had no grazing, not areas that were once grazed; also that the comparison isn't between intensively grazed versus partially grazed areas. Critics must be able to show that their studies contained reasonable controls. Also, private lands used for profit have different criteria than public lands. Finally, intangible values are harder to quantify but must be considered when determining public land use.

In a meta-analysis of 54 studies, 16 variables were examined with a percent of observations that showed detrimental effects of grazing: rodent species diversity 87%, rodent species richness 59%, vegetation diversity 47%, shrub cover 56%, grass cover 71%, forb cover 53%, total vegetation cover 50%, total vegetation biomass 91%, seedling tree survival 75%, seedling non-tree survival 100%, cryptogamic crust cover 83%, litter cover 50%, litter biomass 86%, soil bulk density 78%, soil water infiltration 80%, and soil erosion 100%. Bold indicates the percent is statistically significant. Where individual studies may not yield significant results, meta-analysis will show trends that are significant.

Land Impacts

Range Condition

Range condition is evaluated by measuring the plant species composition on any individual site as compared to the theoretical climax plant community for that specific location, and the amount of deviation from the ideal is "range condition". Any grazing allotment condition other than "excellent" or "potential natural community", barring other factors, is usually considered to be the result of overgrazing. Trends can be analyzed based on amount of bare soil, presence of weeds, invasive species, or young seedlings of climax species. On BLM lands, 64% of the land is rated as stable, which can still mean it is in poor condition. Because of costs, eyeballing is done rather than test plot measurement. These ratings are based on conditions for livestock grazing, and do not include wildlife factors. The rating is for the overall allotment, where parts of the allotment that are not grazed are averaged in with the grazed portions. In a GAO study, 2/3 of BLM and 1/4 of Forest Service allotments do not have management plans or impact data. As many as 1/3 of BLM allotments in certain districts have never been visited. Even with all these exceptions, only 3% of all public rangelands in the West is rated as excellent. It may be too late for restoration in some areas, but when attempted, restoration efforts must consider the watershed as a whole to be successful.

Land use

For one cheap, imported quarter-pound hamburger, about 55 square feet of tropical forest must be leveled. Livestock grazes one half of the planet's land area. One quarter of all cropland is raising feed for livestock. More than 70% of grain grown in the U.S. is livestock feed. Hay, corn, soybeans, and wheat account for 80% of all planted acreage, with all but wheat going for livestock. 1.5% of California's land is used to grow vegetables, which is half of the country's production. The amount of land urbanized in California is 4.5% (includes highways and other paved areas).

Over 3 billion acres of land have been seriously degraded since 1945, and overgrazing accounts for more than a third of the loss. Management may be improving, but most lands are in poor or fair condition. Grazing pressure exerted on the world's grasslands causing desertification is ten times higher than that of native herbivores. Since 1970, over 50 million acres of moist forest have been converted to pasture. More than a third of Central America's forests have been cleared since 1960, and 70% of deforested land in Panama and Costa Rica is now cow pasture. Global meat production has quadrupled since 1950, yet productivity of the land appears to have peaked.

Forage crops such as alfalfa and hay are exotic plants that have replaced native grassland with a monoculture of land requiring herbicides. Irrigation for feed production is the number one consumptive use of water in the West, requiring dams, diversions, and pumping of underground aquifers. Ecologically speaking, growing hay and alfalfa is perhaps the most environmentally damaging aspect of western livestock production.

Soil

Six billion of the seven billion tons of eroded soil in the U.S. is directly attributed to cattle and feedlot production. About 90% of cropland is losing soil at a rate at least 13 times faster than the sustainable rate. Nearly 2 1/2 million acres is being abandoned annually because of erosion and other agricultural-induced degradation. An inch of soil takes a thousand years to develop but can be eroded away in a few years.

Biological crusts consist of native, microscopic organisms such as cyanobacteria, green algae, fungi, lichens and mosses, living on or just beneath the soil surface in the spaces between the larger, more prominent vegetation. They may account for as much as 70% of the living plant cover on soils in some places, holding the soil together and thus reducing soil erosion from wind and water. They create small-scale roughness reducing sheet erosion. Some fix nitrogen and all perform carbon fixation, helping to prevent desertification. Exotic species germinate on the surface, so crusts prevent their establishment and their fuel impacts. The dark crusts can raise soil surface temperatures, which increases nutrient uptake and photosynthesis. Livestock grazing in the summer and fall damages crusts (when dry) by trampling them resulting in broken, degraded crusts or compacted soils. Grazing in the spring prevents regrowth of crusts. Biological crusts in the Great Basin, which developed without large, heavy-bodied herbivores, are more susceptible to continuous grazing that doesn't allow for recovery.

Plants

In the intermountain west and deserts, plants evolved without the large herds of bison, pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep, elk, and other herbivores, and are not adapted to heavy grazing and trampling of livestock. Earlier times had large herbivores, but those were in wetter climatic times. Even in the Great Plains where great herds existed, plants did not need grazing to survive, and grazing caused slower root growth. Native grasses were replaced by sagebrush. Bunchgrass can live up to 100 years, and can be thought of as old growth that should be protected. This community can contain up to 20 species of bunchgrass, a variety of herbaceous flowering plants, many brush and cactus species, yuccas, mushrooms, lichen and mosses. In an aspen community with a long history of livestock use, the understory is represented by fewer species. Most ungulates graze lower areas in the winter removing dead material, dispersing upland in spring to follow the new green growth. Cows tend to stay in the riparian flatter lands.

Weeds

Exotic weeds have spread over more than 100 million acres of western lands and are invading new areas at the rate of 5,000 acres per day. A large number of studies state that cattle and sheep are major causes of weed invasion into grasslands and shrublands of the arid west. Livestock carry seeds in their coats and their guts, and annually move tens of millions of weed seeds to uninfested areas. Repeated preferred grazing by cattle of native plants weakens these plants' reproductive systems, and thus favors exotic species. Trampling reduces microscopic fungi that benefit native plants, but are not used by many of the exotics. Cattle's concentrated urine and feces support nitrogen-loving exotics. Exotics also favor the type of disturbance and open space created by livestock. Federal agencies have ignored these factors, and used herbicides to fight weeds, rather than consider the sources of the invasion.

As you drive along a highway, note the difference in grasses on either side of fences where livestock are kept in. And if there is no fence (ranchers are not legally obligated to fence), if you hit a cow, it is your responsibility.

Refuges and protected areas

Regeneration has occurred in refuges where cattle have been excluded. The recently created Sequoia Monument will continue to allow grazing, even while logging regimes are debated over fire risk. Scientists show that livestock grazing allows the seedlings of coniferous trees to gain a foothold where healthy grasses would otherwise exclude them. This reduces the amount of fine fuels that could carry a fire, which become less frequent, but ultimately larger and more catastrophic.

Water

Water Quality

To produce one steak demands 3,430 gallons of water. A typical meat-eater's diet requires 4,200 gallons of water daily (80% to produce animal products), whereas a pure vegetarian's diet uses 300 gallons. Globally, agriculture claims more than two-thirds of all water used by humans. Half the water consumed in the U.S. is used to raise livestock, primarily to irrigate land growing livestock feed. Agriculture accounts for 83% of all water used in California, with livestock feed the majority use. In 1997 1.7 million acres are planted in alfalfa.

U.S. livestock produce 2 billion tons of manure per year, 185 times that of the U.S. human population. U.S. livestock contribute 5 times more organic waste to water pollution than do people, twice that of industry, and are the number one source of nonpoint water pollution in the West. Livestock waste is a major factor in the nutrient pollution of streams, contributing 39% of the phosphorous and 53% of the nitrogen input to watersheds. In addition, 17% of the nitrogen in the forage leaves when the cattle are taken off-site.

Water rights in the West have allowed ranchers and farmers to divert water from streams and drain springs, degrading water quality and impacting wildlife habitat. But water rights are not water ownership, and the public's interest in water can be asserted. 3,778 miles of river are dewatered in Montana annually, leaving fish and their eggs high and dry. In a Montana study, 90% of annual production of young cutthroat trout was lost out of some streams due to irrigation canals.

Dams and diversions

Out of 133 federally funded irrigation projects, only in 14 had irrigators paid their allotted share. Irrigation concentrates pollutants, and returns them to the streams. Dams fragment aquatic systems, flood habitat and change water temperature and flow regimes.

Streams

Healthy streams have narrow sinuous channels with well-vegetated stream banks, distinct deep pools and shallow ripples, well-sorted bottom sediments, lush vegetated valley bottoms (indicating a high water table), and few gravel and sand bars. The native vegetation slows water flows preventing flooding conditions, and allows soil replenishment as sediments drop out.

Because of their large weight and small hoofs, cattle cause stream bank erosion, compounded by eating of riparian vegetation. The hooves compact the soils leading to diminished water filtration, and more drought-tolerant plant species. Stream channels are widened and become shallow, impacting fish habitat because of warmer water temperatures. Bird habitat is lost as willows, cottonwoods and deep-rooted sedges lose their seedbanks and disappear from stream banks, replaced by shallow-rooted exotic bluegrass that does not hold the bank soil together. The resulting greater flows prevent water from remaining on-site.

Stream restoration begins with the control of grazing, which will allow the reestablishment of lush riparian vegetation on the stream banks and channel bars to capture sediment. Beaver ponds also help by capturing fine sediment that raises the water level of the stream and the valley water table, allowing more frequent valley floor flooding for vegetation restoration.

Riparian areas

Riparian areas provide 70 to 80% of vertebrate species, while occupying less than 1% of the landscape. In the intermountain West and Great Basin, about 85% of native animal species are dependent on riparian areas. Riparian areas only make up .5 to 2% of the landscape. Riparian vegetation give shade over creeks for fish, hold soil together along banks, and influence water quality through nutrient uptake, chemical transformation (nitrogen compounds), and sediment filtration. Livestock grazing affects riparian areas more than any other type of land use. Up to 81% of forage removed by livestock within grazing allotments can come from riparian areas. Channel downcutting caused by grazing impedes the development of multi-layered gallery forests of cottonwood and willows. Passive restoration by eliminating grazing is the least cost method to be used prior to structural modifications and reintroduction of species. Political pressure demands quick results, but natural regeneration is a long-term commitment.

A U.S. EPA report found that "riparian areas throughout much of the West are in the worst condition in history." In a review of over 200 scientific papers, none were found reporting a positive benefit of cattle on riparian areas when those areas were compared to lands with ungrazed controls. Positive results only occurred when comparing reduced stocking rates or newer grazing systems to older techniques. Species requiring year-round flows, cool pools, and moist soils decline without them.

Effects of livestock grazing on riparian areas include stream bank undercuts and fewer stream meanders; increased runoffs and peak flows; increased bare ground, erosion, and compaction; declining plant cover, biomass, and diversity; increased algae, bacteria, and water temperature; and decrease in fish, bird and mammal diversity.

Wildlife Impacts

Wildlife habitat

Livestock grazing affects 22% of at-risk species, twice that of logging or mining. 75% of all wild animals require riparian areas that are trampled by cows. Though some species benefit from grazing, these species include cowbirds and are generally not at-risk. Reduced riparian vegetation from cattle grazing causes loss of cover for songbirds. Cattle grazing tall grasses down to one inch has reduced sage grouse, snake, small mammal, and ground-nesting birds habitat. Since so little land has not been grazed, the effects of livestock on many animal species are unknown. A recent study failed to show any viable vole population where livestock grazing had occurred. Impacts on hummingbirds, marmots, butterflies and other "obscure" creatures have not been studied. Every blade of grass eaten by a cow is that much less to support a grasshopper that might feed a trout, or an elk that might feed a grizzly or wolf. Elk avoid areas actively grazed by livestock, and like other animal species are relegated to less productive areas. Exposure to disease-causing organisms and higher turbidity are just two water quality problems posed by the livestock industry to native species.

Grazing impact on native animals - Species habitat impacts caused by grazing include plant changes, trampling, riparian zone destruction, predator and pest (prairie dogs/grasshoppers) control, water diversion, habitat conversion for pasture, fire regime changes, disease transmission, habitat fragmentation, and water pollution. Currently listed animals include 5 insects, 15 mollusks, 68 fish, 15 reptiles/amphibians, 26 birds, and 26 mammals.

Specific Wildlife Species Impacts

Frogs - Diversion of water for livestock grazing has caused the drying of stream beds that support spotted frog populations, which exhibit strong natal fidelity. The lowering of the water table due to compaction, erosion, and the loss of willows is less obvious but occurs. Grazing disturbs the microhabitat preferred by frogs by reducing riparian plant cover such as willows, exposing frogs to predators and desiccation. Water troughs create migratory deadends where birds and snakes can prey upon the frogs.

Snails - Livestock grazing is a major factor causing extirpation or reduction of both land and freshwater mollusks. In some BLM Great Basin districts, 90% of all named springs have had their native mollusks completely extirpated due to troughing, capping, or diverting for livestock use. At least 3500 springs have been developed in Idaho and Montana with the biota lost forever. Road building creates impassable migration barriers for soft-bodied animals like snails. Of 501 aquatic mollusk sites surveyed in Idaho, only 115 retained springsnails due to human impact. Livestock grazing simplifies the plant community, increases insolation, remove cover sites, and fragments land snail individuals and colonies.

Birds - Breeding bird surveys show national declines in grassland species more widespread than any other group. Brown-headed cowbirds have switched from bison to cattle and followed cattle to areas not formerly grazed by bison. Wide-scale grazing also allows no refuge for species specifically impacted by grazing. Some species respond positively to grazing while others are negatively impacted. It seems that a mosaic of habitat is required to maintain the complete diversity of bird life. The main impacts from grazing include reduction of ground cover for roosting and nesting, loss of fire (creating woody plant species), and reduction of seed production. Thus the loss of native grasslands is a threat to certain bird species, such as the Grasshopper sparrow, Botteri's sparrow, Cassin's sparrow, Brewer's sparrow, and Short-eared owl.

Bears - Protection of livestock has meant the poisoning, baiting, shooting and relocation of bears from natural surroundings. In addition, bears are affected by habitat degradation, such as introduction of nonnative plants, forage competition, reduction in cover, and reduction of prey species. In Wyoming and Montana, 5.2 million cattle grazed in 2000 with 200 killed by bears while 134,000 died from other causes. Solutions to bear population threats include removal of sheep from publicly owned habitat, expansion of bear recovery areas, routine evaluation of livestock use of bear habitat including exclusion of calves, adaptive management of agricultural activity on public lands, protection of native ungulates, and intensive management of livestock at interface lands.

Wolves - The livestock industry is at the heart of the opposition to wolf recovery programs. The huge amount of water that cattle require will always be in conflict with wolves for that resource. Although wolves are a federally listed species, their containment is a subsidy to the livestock industry. They have been downgraded to threatened, even though they have not been reintroduced into states that they once inhabited. As a higher predator, wolves provide carrion for other animals, including bears, eagles, crows, magpies, raccoons, skunks and wolverines. As scavengers, all of these species were decimated in the original wolf poisoning and the follow-up coyote poisoning. Wolves kill coyote, so when they are not present coyote kill more kit foxes, which are now imperiled. Wolves as a predator also sharpen the survival instincts of predator species such as bighorn sheep, elk and deer. Restoration of native ungulates and wolves and bears is needed to restore the ecological balance of the western landscapes.

Prairie dogs - There has been a decline of 99% of the areas of black-tailed prairie dog colonies since 1900. This is also linked to the decline of predators such as the black-footed ferret, swift fox, ferruginous hawk, and burrowing owl. The prairie dogs also create habitat for cottontails, burrowing owls, and reptiles and amphibians. Though prairie dogs negatively impact biomass of taller grasses and several shrubs, they also provide for a greater preponderance of annual forbs and short grasses. Pronghorn and bison prefer these colony lands. Instilling more tolerant attitudes towards prairie dogs is the key to their recovery.

Sage Grouse - Perhaps as many as 10 million sage grouse were in the west in 1806, with 140,000 now surviving. Ideal nesting habitat is a sagebrush overstory and a thick grass/forb understory. Grazing cattle trample wet meadows and riparian areas that provide insects and forbs for juvenile sage grouse. Even light cattle grazing can remove preferred plants of sage grouse, and heavy grazing creates barren spaces between sagebrush plants. BLM has destroyed over 1.8 million hectares of sagebrush to provide grass for cattle by use of herbicides, blading, chaining and fire. Juniper trees move in after grazing and fire, providing perches for raptors, causing sage grouse to avoid former habitat. Sage grouse are caught and killed by barbed wire fencing. ESA listing is the best hope to restore the sagebrush ecosystem.

Native herbivores - Bison, bighorn, pronghorn and elk have declined from 80 million to less than 10 million since the 1850's. Cattle have gone from none to 90 million in the same period. Deer have increased slightly. At one time, there were only 500 bison left for a gene pool. Amount of forage required by deer, pronghorn, and bighorn is about 1/5 that of cattle, with elk about 1/2 that of cattle. Bison require slightly more forage per unit. Less than 3% of the beef produced comes from western public lands, a high price to pay for the loss of native wild ungulates.

Killing of predators

In 1999, more than $10 million was spent on killing predators for livestock protection. Ranchers pay about 25% of this cost. The cost of killing predators exceeded cost of livestock killed by predators by a ratio of 3 to 1. Killing methods include leghold traps, neck snares, aerial gunning, poison bullets, and den killing. Killed in 1999 were 589 badgers, 342 bears, 2,419 bobcats, 85,262 coyotes, 5,531 fox, and 359 mountain lions. Non-target kills included about 3,700 animals. Predators caused 2.7% of the deaths of cattle, compared to weather 9.5% and respiratory problems 27.5%. Though non-lethal methods are more effective, the Wildlife Service almost always uses lethal methods, even though coyotes produce more young in response to the killings. It is unknown what would happen to prey populations if sterilization attempts are successful.

Other Impacts

Fossil fuels

Whereas 78 calories of fossil fuel are needed to produce each calorie of protein from feedlot beef, only 2 calories are needed for one calorie of protein from soybeans. The annual beef consumption for a U.S. family of four requires 260 gallons of fuel, equal to car use for six months. Nearly 50% of energy used by agriculture in the U.S. supports livestock production.

Toxics

Grains to feed animals require extensive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Pesticide production has increased 400 times since Silent Spring was written, with over half of U.S. water pollution attributed to them. Nitrogen from artificial fertilizers, along with manure nitrogen, moves into groundwater and causes nitrate contamination, which has been lined to cancers and other maladies. U.S. cornfields, 80% of which produce livestock feed, use 40% of the country's nitrogen fertilizer. Pesticides banned in the U.S. are legally exported to poor countries. People eating meat injest large amounts of these pesticides.

Greenhouse gases

The burning of tropical forests to create cattle pasture and feed crops releases carbon dioxide and eliminates trees that absorb it. Manufacture of pesticides and fertilizers also contribute to global warming gases. The world's 1.3 billion cattle annually emit 100 million tons of methane, about 29% of the total of this gas placed in the atmosphere. Refrigeration of meat during storage adds chlorofluorocarbons to the atmosphere contributing to ozone thinning.

Health and Diet

The U.S. annual diet includes 246 pounds of meat per person, compared to 156 pounds in the U.K. and 53 pounds in China. Americans consume 5 times the average human on earth. This diet requires one ton of grain per year, compared to the average Asian of 350 pounds. Six hundred pounds of the U.S. diet of grain is attributed to beef, and 500 pounds to pork and chicken. China's diet is changing causing them now to be a grain-importing nation. In Mexico, land area devoted to corn, rice, wheat, and beans has declined since 1965, while share of cropland growing feed and fodder for livestock more than quadrupled between 1960 and 1980. While 22% of Mexico's population is malnourished, 30% of its grain goes to livestock.

Meat affects disease risk in the following ways: compounds in meat may increase cancer risk; well-cooked meat creates mutagens that raise cancer risk; red meat causes formation of toxic compounds in the colon; diets based on meat may be too high in protein increasing saturated fat and cholesterol, causing kidney damage, and negatively impact bone health. It also replaces plant food providing fiber, antioxidants, phytochemicals, and other nutrients. Diseases associated with meat-eaters include atherosclerosis, hypertension, kidney disease, kidney stones, and obesity.

Economics

Economic Analysis of Public Land Grazing

Industrial agriculture employs far less people than traditional farming economies, forcing people off the land and into urban slums. Elimination of all public land grazing would result in a loss of .1% of the West's total employment. Grazing on Federal lands provides a fraction of 1% of income and employment in most local communities. However, agriculture provides up to 6% of the income in non-metropolitan areas in some states. Federal lands in the West provide about 1/5 of the feed needed for livestock, and only 4% of the nation's feed. If Federal lands were not available, ranchers will find ways to cut costs and improve efficiency by re-deploying capital. Farm families increasingly access nonfarm sources. Other competing uses of public lands to grazing include food, minerals, recreation, open space, wildlife habitat, clean water, biological diversity, and other environmental services. Highest and best use may require changes that will increase net benefit to society. Thus loss of agricultural income will be offset by increases in other incomes or benefits. Negative impacts to local individuals can be mitigated through payments, without stopping improved use of land. The West will continue to be a primary urban area with vast expanses of open space between settlements.

Conversion of private lands

In California, less than 5% of the land area is devoted to cities, towns, and subdivisions. Agriculture dominates 70% of the land area. Development has gobbled up the most valuable agricultural land in the world, so even with subsidies such as low grazing fees, marginal ranches cannot compete with demand for housing. If the money spent on subsidies were devoted to protecting and buying up wildlife habitat, the land would be better off.

Escrow waivers

Grazing permits convey a privilege, not a right. This distinction was intended by Congress in the Taylor Act, articulated in Forest Service regulations, confirmed by scholars, and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000. Permits are revocable, amendable, nonassignable 10-year licenses to graze that do not convey property rights. Since they are usually renewed, permit owners treat them as collateral for loans. Because other property may not be sufficient collateral, the grazing permit is submitted as collateral that would be turned over to the bank, if foreclosed. The Forest Service has to sign off on this arrangement. Escrow waivers (waiving rights to a third party) have never been codified into Federal law, but a 1990 MOU between the Forest Service and the Farm Credit Association is in force. These loans keep stocking rates artificially high and grazing fees low to maintain the loan value. Any attempt to protect the ecosystem is fought by the grazing association, banks, and local congress people, even though on the long run, the lands are degraded and of less value. Legal challenges to the MOU that requires notice of mandated livestock reductions include violation of environmental statutes and failure of the agency to disclose the impact of escrow waivers.

Cows versus condos

The argument that to save open space, we must keep ranches going is a false dichotomy (cows versus condos). Instead we have both cows and condos. Beef prices are not controllable and public demand for cleaner water, restored species, intact ecosystems will continue. Where demand is high enough, ranchers will cash in. Surveys among ranchers have shown that losing public land access would cause ranchers who value their lifestyle to modify their operations by buying private land, reducing herd size, or through outside employment.

Industry support

Government agencies, universities, elected politicians and banks support the livestock industry. Agency budgets depend on maintaining the industry, and Federal personnel often must live in the rural small towns, which can skew decisions. State legislatures dominated by extractive interests exert strong pressures. Fish and Game programs depend on private lands for hunting and fishing programs. University research at land grant institutions is supported by grant and state money used to assist the livestock industry in becoming more productive. Ranchers are often elected officials in many western states, having lived in the area for years. They have the time available for winter legislative sessions, and have a financial interest at stake. Banks finance local ranchers, and have a stake in maintaining their loan values.

Fees

For every cow/calf pair grazing on a public allotment for a month (animal unit month or AUM), the rancher pays $1.35. This is less than the cost of feeding a gerbil. The fee for leasing private lands is 8 to 10 times higher. Typically, 50 to 63% of this fee is returned to local agency districts to be placed in a Range Betterment Fund. It is used for fencing, spring development, herbicide spraying, and other tasks to serve the needs of privately owned livestock or to mitigate the damage from grazing. In some cases, BLM uses taxpayer funds earmarked for wildlife habitat projects to pay for restoration, not rangeland management dollars. Taxpayers also pay most of the bill for thousands of cattle guards costing $10,000 each, as well as for fences costing $5,000 per mile. Fencing campgrounds typically comes from the recreation budget rather than the rangeland budget.

Alternatives

Although the most straightforward solutions are a reduced demand for meat through diet changes and population reductions, other solutions also exist. Some alternatives include zoning and planning to control sprawl, land acquisition, and purchase or trading of development rights. The amount of public money that is currently spent to support public land grazing could be used to pay for the purchase of land or these development rights.

Holistic Resource Management or HM

This doctrine defines the major problem facing rangelands as "overrest", not overgrazing. Allan Savory maintains that "rest is probably the most destructive tool known to science". He says that more cows are the solution to a host of rangeland problems. HM focuses on goal setting and operating a business in accordance with widely accepted practices. As regards to livestock, HM believes that without livestock, lands would suffer desertification, declining productivity, and diminished biodiversity. Managed under HM guidelines, livestock can be used to reduce weeds and soil erosion, increase productivity of rangelands, improve water quality and wildlife habitat, increase biodiversity and water infiltration, and restore riparian areas, all while simultaneously enriching the rancher's bottom line.

HM rates land by brittleness (difficulty with recovery), with dry seasonable land as most brittle, and humid, tropical lands as least brittle. Seasonable land produces grasses whose dead portion must be grazed off each year to maintain biomass.

HM supporters state they are only interested in ecosystem health. HM doctrine requires confining large number of animals into relatively small areas, under tightly controlled conditions. Although stocking rate is high, duration of grazing on one spot is low. Ranchers monitor plant utilization, and move their livestock accordingly. They believe that livestock grazing promotes higher productivity of plant communities. Hoof action incorporates organic material into the soil, to push seeds into the ground for germination.

Response to HM

Other researchers say that the main reason livestock operators may see a positive result is because they start paying attention to livestock husbandry. HM requires intensive monitoring, which is a good thing. However, some researchers have found no inherent superiority in HM techniques over other grazing strategies that also pay more attention to stocking rate and the monitoring of range conditions.

HM assumes crops need to be cropped, the plants responding to the grazing by growing new leaf material. However, this is really a coping mechanism rather than a positive response to a beneficial event. It is like coyotes having more pups when they are poisoned as being something good for their health. Actually, there are places that thrive in the absence of grazing animals, even in drought conditions.

Most plants west of the Continental Divide evolved without large herding animals such as bison, and lack mechanisms to cope with significant grazing pressure. Yet HM advocates say these dry regions would benefit the most from increased grazing. They warn that with too much rest from grazing, plants become overmature and decadent (like old-growth forests). However, all rangelands are grazed by something even if cattle are not there (grasshoppers, jackrabbits, elk etc).

Regrowth from grazing is higher in nitrogen and thus more palatable to livestock. But a plant that grows leaves must redirect energy from seed or root production toward above ground photosynthetic material, making them more vulnerable to drought. Research has shown that grazing cannot increase overall plant biomass production, except under cultivated conditions. HM often fail to produce as much forage per acre as do other grazing techniques.

HM advocates claim that hooves of livestock are necessary to integrate organic matter into the soil and improve fertility. But research shows that water is the limiting factor. Nutrient cycling is actually hurt by grazing that removes shading vegetation and compacts material so water can't penetrate as deeply, which limits microbial decomposition. A researcher stated "In our search of the literature we could find no studies that substantiate Savory's claim on the benefits of hoof action on range soils." Cattle hoof action, instead of breaking up the surface to allow rain to soak the ground and not runoff, actually compacts the upper layers increasing runoff. At the same time, the destruction of the living soil crusts accelerates erosion and allows spread of weeds such as cheatgrass.

HM is supposed to increase biodiversity, but just having more numbers and species that are not historical is not really increasing biodiversity if native species are reduced in population or distribution. Thus, HM by its support of livestock grazing continues the prevention of restoration of the biodiversity of native species ranging from grasshoppers to trout to elk.

Some say that HM with its more intensive management including fencing and ranchers guiding the cattle would solve the problem. But where will the money come from and would it be well spent in the West? Would it be better spent in protecting wildlife?

To evaluate whether livestock can be used as a tool ask the following questions:

1) Is the problem really a problem? Producing more shrubs for deer by grazing livestock may not be needed if there is already plenty of deer habitat.

2) Are there negative side effects and what are they?

3) Are there alternative ways to achieve the same goal?

4) If livestock are the best tool for a situation, seek special limited permission for their use.

Other alternatives

Roadmap to elimination of grazing on public lands

1) Adopt a policy calling for the gradual phase-out of livestock grazing on Federal land.

2) Allow nonranchers to hold or retire grazing permits for conservation purposes

3) Require the government to buy out voluntarily surrendered permits.

4) Allow ranchers or others who hold a grazing permit not to use it (currently 3-year nonuse limit).

5) Retire grazing permits when voluntarily surrendered.

6) Retire grazing allotments currently vacant or in poor condition, and cancel all permits in the hot deserts of the Southwest

7) Supplement county payments for all grazing permits retired.

8) Prohibit banks from using federal grazing permits as collateral on land to ranchers.

9) Uphold and enforce existing laws including Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest management Act, Endangered Species Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Clean Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Editors Vision

The current system is bad, wasteful public policy, which favors a small group of producers to the detriment of our Western waters, lands and wildlife. Our native plants and animals are under tremendous pressure from pollution, exotic species, habitat fragmentation, development, and inappropriate grazing.

Our public lands are a potential refuge. They are large, continuous blocks of habitat that should be managed to maintain native species and ecosystems. Restoration is required from past damage that will only stop when we remove livestock. We must ask, what can our public lands do best? Public lands are far superior as fountainheads of natural biological diversity than they are as large-scale feed grounds.

Without cows, the West would be millions of acres with newly invigorated grasses, robust with sagebrush and other shrubs no longer bulldozed for cattle feed, growing herds of elk, wild sheep, pronghorn antelope, bison, increased native predator populations. It would contain clear streams filled with native fishes, their margins filled with songbirds and small invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians. There would be the reappearance of cottonwood galleries, the regreening of lowland meadows and curving flat valley rivers.

We can envision a future in which our public lands are in far better ecological condition than at present, in which there are far fewer species on the edge of extinction, in which landscape-scale ecological processes can operate with a minimum of human interference. This is an achievable goal. It is time to begin.

Quotes from the Book

"Almost anywhere in the American West you will find hordes of these ugly, clumsy, stupid, bawling, stinking, fly-covered, s-smeared, disease-spreading creatures. They are a pest and a plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest our canyons, valleys, meadows, and forests. They graze off the native bluestem and grama and bunch grasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. They trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cacti. They spread the exotic cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheat grass."

Edward Abbey, 1985.

"This nation and civilization is founded upon 9" of topsoil and when that is gone there will no longer be any nation or any civilization", Hugh Bennett, U.S. Soil Conservation Service.

"Resolved, that none of us know, or care to know, anything about grasses, native or otherwise, outside of the fact that for the present there are lots of them, the best on record, and we are getting the most out of them while they last." Unanimous declaration, passed at a West Texas cattlemen's meeting, 1895.

In 1886, a visitor to Carrizo Plain wrote "In the spring, native bunch grasses, reaching as tall as the sides of a horse, grew thick on the undulating land, turning to naturally cured hay in the summer. Wild horses, elk, deer, and antelope were abundant on the plain and large flocks of sandhill cranes spent each winter at Soda Lake." Today exotic grasses and weeds dominate the Carrizo Plain. Livestock grazing and farming are the leading causes of the disappearance of the state's native grasses. And though Carrizo Plain is sometimes called "California's Serengeti," parts of it are sadly more reminiscent of sub-Saharan Africa.