Eye on the Outside - Reprint

Reprint from April 2012

Some things are so logical and filled with reason they proverbially go in one ear and out the other without completely registering their

meaning. Let me try an example on you I first heard as a boy so many years ago it is hard to believe I still remember it but for the fact it continues to be repeated on a regular basis. “Why would we harm this land/ this resource? We grow our crops on it/ raise our livestock on its forage. If we mistreated it we would be harming our own livelihood. It would go against our best interests to do something to make this resource produce less than its optimum capability.” Does this or something very close to this sound familiar to you? I would venture to say many of you have said words very close to this at some point in the past. And who wouldn’t say something similar to this if their motives for doing things were attacked by people who have no notion of the reasons certain things are done in a certain way, or there have been gross misrepresentations made by people or groups of people who want to destroy what you do with the property you own. This is a hint at the premise of why a person would say the words quoted above. The basis for such statements is the very human tendency to protect, enhance or preserve their own property. A corollary to this is the profit motive. If it is your business to utilize your property by placing it into production, you do so with the incentive to make a profit which provides you with a livelihood. In other words, you don’t destroy your means of production because you won’t be in business anymore if you do. Producers of nonrenewable resources such as mining companies do deplete the resource, it is true, but they use part of their profits to develop more means of production and given modern environmental rules they do so with the least harm to the environment as possible. However, this is a livestock magazine, so I am writing about the use of renewable resources to produce a product. If grass is my resource and I use it as forage for my livestock, why would I go out of my way to destroy the very thing I depend upon for my livelihood? Well I wouldn’t and neither would you. Most ranchers seek to preserve, protect and enhance the natural resources they and their animals depend upon. I will concede there are some who don’t do this. However, over time, more and more ranchers understand either through education, practical experience or a combination of both there are more progressive, scientific ways to operate their ranches than the ways employed by their grandparents. I also admit there have been abuses in the past and greed overtook rationality in some cases. Over a hundred years ago we saw an onslaught on the western ranges and a misunderstanding that the resource was more capable than it actually was. Thus, for instance, in the late 1880s the northern ranges were overgrazed, no provision was made for winter feed and after several very mild winters, tens of thousands of cattle died when a severe winter swept down from the arctic. Did northern plains ranchers repeat the mistakes which caused whole herds of cattle to die off? No, of course not. They learned what a reasonable carrying capacity was for their ranges and they raised hay for winter supplemental feeding. Now, these areas are more productive than they ever have been, and the resource upon which the ranchers depend for their livelihood is protected and sustainable.

Furthermore, every area of human endeavor has seen advances in the last hundred years. We have hand held communication devices and computers we can fit in a pocket, take a picture and send it from Tonopah to Tokyo in an instant. Then, we barely had a telephone, no slide rules and you needed a pack mule to carry a camera. Do the critics of livestock grazing really believe there have been no advances in range science and natural resource production and protection in the last one hundred years? Do critics of big production agriculture really believe that plant and crop science advances have been made so the producers of food can harm mankind? Apparently, this is the case because, at least, in my experience, ranchers in the west who depend on the public ranges are the butt of continual criticism from uninformed or purposefully misleading environmental groups who want to end livestock grazing on land which might be in the public domain, but which in many cases is exactly the same kind of land held in private hands. We all know the agenda, but my real pet peeve here is the members of the public who put their own beliefs in the profit motive incentive and protection and enhancement of property rights on hold when, without thinking, they accept the notion that a rancher would harm his or her self interest by destroying their means of production. We have all seen variations of the map which shows federal land ownership comparisons among the states. If you haven’t seen one lately, go to the U.S. General Services Administration, Federal Real Property Profile for a real eye opener. According to this source, the average federal land ownership among the eleven western states excluding Alaska is over 48%. Nevada is the highest with 84.5 % in this diagram but estimates go as high as 89%, according to some other sources. In a recent article in a respected natural resource oriented magazine, the federal government controls over 30% of the landmass of the United States. There are many arguments for questioning the constitutionality of this large federal ownership of so much land, but that is not the purpose of this column. Also, I would argue the federal government has a place in the protection of certain natural resource treasures against development such as the Grand Canyon, Yosemite and the Everglades. I am even in favor of some National Monuments but certainly not ones such as the Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument with over 1.6 million acres set aside from any resource production. Also, in that same article it was stated the BLM and Forest Service employ over 40,000 people managing some 446,000,000 acres of land. Many of

you have experienced dealings with these folks which border on the irrational. Instead of a profit motive, and at times at the expense of decisions which are best for the resource, the federal land managers defy logic and respond to outside pressure and the threat of lawsuits to manage the resource. Decisions which a private party would make in a matter of days can take months or even years. To their credit, many of the personnel working for these agencies decry this irrationality but good bureaucrats must follow the system rather than a more logical, reasonable approach to solving problems A good current example is the attempt to come up with a plan to help restore the sage brush steppe to help prevent the sage grouse from being listed as an endangered species, the agencies can’t see the forest for the trees in front of their faces and accept the notion in their publications that grazing interference is a cause of sage grouse decline in the face of obvious facts. Some of these facts are that predation from ravens and other protected bird species and coyotes and cause much more harm than livestock grazing to the survival of the bird’s hatch. Another significant harm to the sage grouse is the west wide incursion of pinion/ juniper forests crowding out the traditional sage brush steppe because of the more than a century policy of the agencies to stop the normal wildfire cycle which kept these forests in balance with the rest of the ecological system. Because of this fire suppression policy, wildfires on the grasslands now burn hotter and when they are through, the brush resource is gone and invasive species such as cheat grass take over for the next fire to burn even hotter. This is because the agencies have relatively inflexible rules about early season grazing which fails to account for the growth patterns of certain plants such as an annual like cheat grass versus perennial plants that need maturity before they are grazed. Moreover, the almost 50% reduction in livestock AUMs in the last 50 years has resulted in excessive fuel loads accumulating on the ranges which help to exacerbate the intensity and size of lightning and man- caused fires. Much of the above, of course, is not news to ranchers who graze on the public ranges. For instance, sheep ranchers see sage grouse in large numbers over some of their ranges because they are more actively involved in predator control especially in the areas where they lamb. With fewer coyotes and more hands on involvement with ewes who are more prone to giving birth to twins and even triplets than cows, even predators such as ravens are kept away just because of the presence of more humans. In such areas more sage grouse are seen because one of the chief causes of hatch mortality is taken out of the picture. Therefore, common sense would tell the observer to do more predator control if the goal is to have more sage grouse. The myth persists that livestock are one of the chief causes of the decline of the sage grouse when the agencies admit negative impacts from grazing are way down on the list of factors far below invasive plant species and sage grouse predators. So to bring us back to a cliché which adequately explains things, livestock producers (property owners with a profit incentive) and federal agency personnel are on the horns of a dilemma. The agencies should recognize that producers have no reason to harm the resource which provides their livelihood. They should ignore the misrepresentations of a very vocal minority and confirm on the ground what much of the science has already proven, properly managed grazing is a tool which can enhance and protect the whole resource, including in the instant case, sage grouse. Private property interests should be more vocal in asserting what logic and reason have proven throughout history; if allowed to exist in a relatively unfettered environment, the resources devoted to a profit making enterprise will be protected and sustained. I am not arguing for eliminating regulation, just a loosening of an overly restrictive and regulated business climate. The public can have its “land”. I don’t think it is feasible or possible to go back to the policies which existed in this country prior to the passage of the Federal Lands Policy Management Act. So let’s have the pendulum swing a little bit back towards a more rational recognition of the part private property incentives can play in land management policies. If we do this everyone, including the critics of federal lands grazing, might be pleasantly surprised. I’ll see you soon.

Sleeping Hay

The winter sun glows off the field of sleeping hay all gold and shone of another day long ago many months away It was hot and the fiery rays came down to stay as if to say we are forever it is our way Growing a crop now stored, piled high waiting for the cattle ‘neath the cold dim sky Soon it will green up, show its life again But for now well just view it as it once had been Radiant and reflecting all creation resting now quiet but just for a spell

by Joseph Guild December 2010