Read weekly blogs of Missouri State Ag students perspective on the Animal Welfare/Animal Rights debate

Monday, October 25, 2010

To Graze or Not To Graze

By Jessica Sokolic

Can you imagine losing 157 million acres, covering 16 Western States, of public land used for livestock grazing in the United States? To give you an idea of the size of the amount of land I am talking about, know that the approximate total land mass of the state of Texas is a little over 167 million acres. This possible loss has become a largely debatable topic. A large group of people, led by radical environmentalists, have created the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign. This Campaign is focused on ending grazing on public lands by offering a grazing permit buyout program. The members of this Campaign believe that grazing livestock destroy natural ecosystems, take food away from and spread disease to natural wildlife, trample vegetation, spread invasive weeds and pollute water sources. They have taken these beliefs to Congress in 2005 in the form of the Multiple-Use Conflict Resolution Act (H.R. 3166), which never became law. They haven’t stopped there and are still fighting to end the use of grazing permits on public lands.
            The use of grazing permits found it’s beginnings as far back as the 1930’s. In response to the issue of overgrazing on Western public lands due to the homesteading era, Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. The Taylor Grazing Act established the first regulated grazing districts and eventually led to the creation of the Bureau of Land Management in 1946. Within these grazing districts, grazing management practices, including the use of fences and water projects, were used to increase the production of the land and decrease the erosion of the land. Grazing management practices are continuously studied and upgraded by the Bureau of Land Management, in cooperation with the Forest Service, to ensure the best and safest use of public land grazing.
            The National Cattleman’s Beef Association fears that by losing the use of grazing permits, not only will we lose valuable grazing areas that are essential to the cattle industry; we will lose the wide open spaces that the West has become known for. They worry that by buying out grazing permits and permanently retiring public lands from grazing, ranchers will be forced to downsize, selling land adjoining these public areas, bringing developments into the heart of the West’s wide open spaces. It is then feared that these developments will have a detrimental effect on established natural ecosystems, altering not only vegetation but also animals and their habitats. The National Cattleman’s Beef Association believes that well managed grazing can be very beneficial to the natural ecosystems of the West and evidence of this is shown by the awarding of the National Environmental Stewardship Award.
            The Environmental Stewardship Award Program, ESAP, has been honoring U.S. cattle producers who have shown outstanding efforts in conservation and land management for almost two decades. A recent winner of the 2009 award, Leavitt Lake Ranches of Vina, California, manages 25,000 acres of public land through the Bureau of Land Management grazing permits. Dave Petty, chairman of the Environmental Stewardship Award selection committee and 2001 award winner, made this statement in regards to Leavitt Lake Ranches, “The Leavitt [Lake Ranches] family has taken a leadership role through the cohabitation of endangered species and cattle. They show that cattle ranching supports these species better than non-use of the land” (Angus Journal).
The loss of 157 million acres of public land available for grazing will not only have a detrimental effect on the cattle industry, natural ecosystems and the vast open spaces of the West, according to a study done by the Society for Ranch Management, it will also have a big impact on ranching operations. In this study, interviews were done on 49 people, 33 ranchers and 16 agency personnel, in the Rocky Mountain Region of the Western United States. They were asked questions regarding their potential motivations for participation in a buyout program and potential consequences of the buyout program. Out of these 49 people, only 17% claimed that they would participate in such a program. The possible consequences of this program included substantially large financial, ecological and administrative costs.
If a program to buyout grazing permits and permanently retire public lands from livestock grazing were put into place, the livestock industry will lose a grazing area slightly smaller than the state of Texas. While the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign will fight to make this happen, the National Cattleman’s Beef Association will fight to make sure that it doesn’t. Both sides offer arguments that are definitely worth consideration.


Sources






No comments:

Post a Comment