Hi everybody,

John Foster asked:
>Do we need substitutes for wood for newspapers and homes?
>
>The answer is yes.
>
>Only pursuing the right questions.
>
>John Foster

I appreciated reading Chris Perley's rather precise response to John's
somewhat enigmatic aphorisms . . . .  I hope that perhaps John will come
back again and elaborate a bit further on what he feels are the right
questions.

Meanwhile, Chris's response got me thinking in a similar way about the
exchange between Michael and Ray Lanier that touches on, among other
things, livestock grazing.   Many environmentalists, but also . . . well .
. . many "vegetarians" <smile> seem to have the idea that all livestock
grazing is simply bad as a rule.   Often this view seems to function as a
basic assumption and often passes without close scrutiny.  A necessary
corollary of this rule seems to be the rather wistful speculation that if
we could just do away with beef cattle altogether, and then all become
vegetarians somehow, the world would ultimately be a happier, healthier,
and environmentally more wholesome place.

For example, Michael wrote:
>> However, our modern agricultural meat-eating society does not preserve
>> habitats from overgrazing by herbivores.  On the contrary it  actually
>> destroys habitats in order to produce more herbivores than our planet can
>> sustain, and far more than we need for health.  I have heard anecdotal
>> reports (I would be glad if anyone on this list can verify or otherwise)
>> that methane from cow farts are a bigger contributer to global warming
>than
>> carbon dioxide emmissions from industry.
>>

To which Ray responded:
>The major problem with human use of animals (beef, etc.) is that it is a
>very inefficient way of providing energy for humans to exist.  Vegetarianism
>is much more efficient and would leave large acreages available for
>non-human animal and plant life to exist.

These emails reminded me of a discussion that occurred not too long ago on
the Wildlife Society list that debated the environmental merits and
demerits of grazing.  Now, while I do not wish to downplay the very real
environmental costs of *over*grazing and the like, I'd like to pass along
just a few of the very interesting posts from that discussion.  These may
serve as a bit of a corrective to the oversimplistic views that grazing
necessarily destroys habitats and/or is always inefficient and bad from an
environmental standpoint.

One of the important points to take from these emails will be the familiar
one that, "context matters."

For example, on that forum a biologist named Kristin Hassleblad had this to
say (I'll include full attribution in case anyone here wants to track these
folks down at some point):

>Status: U
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Date:         Fri, 9 Apr 1999 00:21:19 EDT
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>Sender: TWS-L Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
>From: Kristin Wood Hasselblad <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      Re: Is all livestock grazing bad?
>Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>I agree with the pro-livestock grazing statements made so far. Coming from
>mountainous western Montana, where cowbirds wreak havoc and streams are
>degraded, I thought all livestock grazing was bad. Then I got a job in North
>Dakota working on Burrowing Owls, and the livestock grazers became the good
>guys. They were the only ones that had any native prairie left. The rest was
>cropland. The only place I would ever find the rare burrowing owl was in
>places that were quite heavily grazed, and "maintained" by the livestock. It
>was quite an eye-opening experience.
>
>Kristin Hasselblad
>Consulting biologist

 To which another biologist named Patrick Cambell responded:

>Status: U
>X-Authenticated-Sender: [log in to unmask]
>Date:         Fri, 9 Apr 1999 14:09:04 +0000
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>Sender: TWS-L Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
>From: [log in to unmask]
>Subject:      Re: Is all livestock grazing bad?
>Comments: To: Kristin Wood Hasselblad <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Anytime we alter an ecosystem, there will be winners and
>loosers.  Typically, there will be more loosers.  When
>examining the effects of a land use practice we must be
>careful not to judge it as "good" simply because one
>species, in this case burrowing owls, a sensitive,
>protected species, benefits.  We should examine the
>effects of grazing, and other practices, on the
>integrity, diversity and processes of the ecosystem.
>Intensive livestock grazing has been shown many times
>over, to degrade, or at least alter, the integrity,
>diversity and processes of ecosystems. Livestock grazing
>is here to stay and it can be used as an effective
>management tool to "improve" habitats. However, we must
>be careful to wisely choose the criteria we use to
>determine if it is "good" or "bad".
>
>Patrick Campbell
>
>SI/MAB Biodiversity Program
>Smithsonian Institution
>10th & Constitution Ave., NW
>NHB - East Court Room C-122
>Washington, DC 20560-0180  USA
>ph: (202) 786-3115; fax: (202) 633-8918
>[log in to unmask]
>www.si.edu/simab

But my favorite, and the best (IMHO) and most detailed response came from a
biologist from the Kansas dept. of Wildlife and Parks, Lloyd Fox.  Fox's
response is definitely worth copying here in its entirety:

>Status: U
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Priority: 3
>Date:         Fri, 9 Apr 1999 21:11:22 -0500
>Reply-To: Lloyd Fox <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender: TWS-L Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
>From: Lloyd Fox <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      Grazing & wildlife management
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>We need to be careful about generalizations on grazing.  One person said
>to our group: "Intensive livestock grazing has been shown many times over,
>to degrade, or at least alter, the integrity, diversity and processes of
>ecosystems."   I've seen places were this is correct, but I've also seen
>where the opposite it true.  It isn't one species or pasture that I'm
>concerned about, its an ecosystem and its function. 
> 
>My comments are based on observations in the southern portion of the
>shortgrass ecosystem.  In that region, intense grazing is necessary.  If
>you put a fence around shortgrass prairie and take the cattle out you will
>eventually lose not only burrowing owls, mountain plovers, (which I think
>should have been named the high plains plover),  prairie dogs, and other
>keystone members of the ecosystem, but also the function, and uniqueness
>of that natural system.  What some would call overgrazing is essential to
>maintain its biodiversity and stability and to keep it inhospitable for
>other species to invade.  A short walk in a prairie dog town will
>recalibrate your concept of "intense grazing."   Moderate is
>insufficient.  Lack of intense grazing can also degrade ecosystems.
> 
>For most people, the shortgrass ecosystem is that uncomfortable portion of
>the drive on their way the the Rocky Mountain.  Many people do not like
>the "look" of a flat shortgrass prairie grazed by livestock.  Some may
>wish that ranchers and their cattle would just go away and that bison and
>wolves would return, or that the area would look more like the Black
>Hills, Front Range or Flint Hills tallgrass prairie. 
> 
>I wish people had more passion, and appreciation for the shortgrass
>community.  It has not only unique species, but serves as a critical
>buffer between many eastern and western species.  Therefore the size, and
>as some would say, its hostile uniformity are critical to its ecosystem
>function.  Even within our profession many people use their knowledge of
>some other ecosystem as their compass throught this one.  We tend to plant
>trees, sow tallgrass prairie species and build ponds and yes, remove the
>cows to make it "better" habitat.  These are exactly what we should avoid.
>
> 
>I agree with Kristin Hasselblad's observations and encourage people to
>look at livestock grazing from a functional aspect.  One large bovid, the
>bison, is functionally gone from the community.  If we remove cattle, the
>nearest ecological equivalent, we compound the problem, not correct it. 
> 
>We need to be thinking of ways for ranchers to live and prosper within the
>shortgrass ecosystem.  Livestock grazing is a means people can use for
>making a living it could also satisfies ecological needs within the
>system.  Let's not force a conversion of what is left.  Take a look at one
>conversion that is occurring today.  Blocks of 160 acres are being
>plowed.  Irrigation wells are drilled so that corn can be grown in an area
>with only 15 inches of annual rainfall.  A corporate hog farm moves to a
>high plains county that had less than 6,000 people and creates sewage
>equivalent to the human waste produced in New Delhi, India.  If you think
>this is impossible, visit the area around the Cimarron National Grasslands.
> 
>The wildlife profession was founded on the premise that its practitioners
>could make wildlife management decisions that had positive ecosystem,
>wildlife population, and yes, human consequences.  Leopold, Errington, T.
>Roosevelt, and others may not have used those exact words but their goals
>were for long-term harmony between man's uses of the landscape and the
>particular ecosystem.  If we do our job correctly and keep the big picture
>in minds, somewhere in that definition of wildlife management there will
>be more winners than losers. 
> 
>Lloyd Fox
>KS Wildlife & Parks
 
Jim again here:  I don't have much in the way of a concluding punch line
here, except to say that I think Fox is right that we need to be careful
about making generalizations on grazing.  I also think that asking the
right questions with regard to environmental issues like agriculture,
wildlife control, hunting, vegetarianism, or whatever requires us to pay a
bit more attention to the specifics of particular contexts.  This of
course, is no earth-shaking revelation, but I often find the reminder
helps.

Jim T.

ps. Ray, thanks for the encouragement, of course you may come to regret it
<smile> --amazing what being stuck indoors during a snowstorm will do for
one's work habits. . . . take care, jt