From: jhurst@amb4.ese.ogi.edu (James Hurst)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Grazing (Was Re: Ancient Forest Action Alert!)
Keywords: Bring back the buffula?  Serengetti in Kansas?
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:48:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.40450
Distribution: sci
Organization: Great White and the Buffalo Blues

Steinn Sigurdsson writes:
> [Paul Houle re grazing and such]

> Indeed, what is one to make of the following:
>
>Nature, _357_, 644, 25 June, 1992
>
>Discussing effects of ruminant grazing on grassland ecology:
>
>	"...If we accept the Grime model of moderate stress leading to
>enriched diversity then local fertilization is more likely to timulate
>the growth of "competitor" plants...
> ...In practise, the establishment of species-rich grassland,
>according to the work of Gibson and Brown, demands more than a quick
>fix by a selected grazing regime. They claim that centuries of very
>heavy grazing is the only sure way of establishing the species rich
>"ancient" grasslands which are so highly prized by conservationists
>in temperate regions. There is no magic short cut. Within our life
>spans we may have to make do with the patchy environment created by
>a leaky cow."
>

Interesting indeed.  There are a variety of myths and facts circulating 
about the "large animal influence" on arid grasslands.  Friends in the field
have reported than range managers use it as an excuse to strip pulic range to
the roots.  Funny how private rangelands are in so much better shape.  I agree 
that the large animal influce must be a factor, but we should probably also 
consider which large animal.  Yet there has been some very nice recovery work 
done on grasslands by removing cow grazing pressure for a few years, so I'm not 
sold on Gibson and Brown yet.  In the end, ecological things are usually site 
specific, and sweeping generalities are difficult to apply.

The indisputable fact remains that cows have converted millions of acres of 
western grassland to sagebrush, which represents a long term loss of 
productivity of the land.  They have also severly impacted the hydrology of 
large regions, something with severe ecologic and economic costs.

My take is that cows are an animal poorly suited for arid lands.  They evolved
/were domesticated (was the original stock Asian?) in the humid lands of Europe
and Asia, and produced a horrific impact when introduced to the arid West.
Consider cows on the range:  they like to hang in the riparian zone, and eat
everything in sight:  grass, trees, herbs, whatever.  They aren't very mobile,
they don't move until everything is eaten.  They require a lot of water, and
are subject to diseases.

Contrast this to the natives.  The bison is much better suited for western 
rangelands, IMHO, by virture of its big front shoulder.  This is an animal 
built for running, they can run for miles at a time, which distributes their
impact on the environment, and avoids the devastating impact of cows.  At risk
of projecting anthopocentric emotions, it appears they might even like to run
for a few miles every day or so.  Deer an antelope are also browsers, with a
much lighter touch than the slow elk, hooved locusts, ground maggots and
other infestations of domestic livestock.

The Buffalo Commons is an interesting proposal by a couple of Yale (?) 
academics, the Poppers.  In the High Plains, there are dozens or hundreds of 
counties where more than half the county income is from Social Security or 
surplus crop subsidies.  Rather than propping up failing rural economies, the 
Poppers propose using these subsidies to buy folks out, and let the counties 
in question revert to more or less natural conditions, since they no longer
possess economically significant value.  (With the large block of good grain 
lands from the former USSR coming onto the world market, the failing of these 
local economies is likely to be accelerated).  This presents an interesting 
opportunity to save some money and restore an impressive part of the American
heritage at the same time.

					Jim
Newsgroups: sci.environment