(This can become a very dicey and emotional issue when people's livelihood is involved. Keep that in mind when contrasting this piece with the recent vote on I-161. - promoted by Rob Kailey)
(This column from Montana writer Todd Wilkinson first appeared in the News & Guide...sorry, but I couldn't locate the link. - mk)
"Dad, are we going to see many birds?"
I hope so, son. It looks like a good year.
Every parent knows that the hours we have with our offspring are fleeting. You cling to the bonding times, the moments when you make discoveries together that will provide opportunities for reflection later on.
For our family, some of the more memorable autumn afternoons have unfolded in pursuit of mountain blue grouse.
Bushwhacking through downfall and across high meadows is exhilarating, particularly with what you look forward to seeing along the way.
It matters less that we arrive home with wild game birds to eat. What's important is that the grouse are there, where they should be, in the national forest, on public land.
This year, as last year, as the one before it, there was no trace of birds at our favorite destinations, only broken clumps of juniper; brome mowed down to the dirt; trees rubbed bare of bark by bovines; a proliferation of cow pies; spotted knapweed rising from the disturbed soil; and trampled streamsides that used to harbor frogs.
The side valley I mention is akin to many each of us knows.
According to the revised local national forest management plan, cattle grazing is not supposed to come at the expense of achieving favorable habitat conditions for native wildlife and watershed protection.
I am a sportsman. Some organizations make claims - unsubstantiated by science - that reintroduced wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are a "foreign" wolf subspecies never native to these parts. I've also heard of some Montana stockmen referring to bison as "exotic animals."
In what category, then, do they place beef cows and wool sheep?
Cows in the public land dale which we formerly nicknamed "grouse valley" are taking forage that would normally go into the bellies of elk, moose, and mule deer.
Tributary creeks left muddied by concentrated hoof traffic send silt into bigger streams important to native trout, clotting their spawning cobble with muck. Mountain grouse do not tolerate cattle well. The herds scatter skittish avians off of the ridge tops where they would normally be, and eat away their grassy cover where they lie in wait during the fall for grasshoppers.
In fact, amid the Forest Service meadows where cattle have been all summer, we encountered very little wildlife of any kind. There are no wolves or grizzlies to blame.
Ranchers who graze livestock on public lands get a great deal. Most pay below private market rates for the grass their cattle eats; their animals roam almost anywhere untended; and they get taxpayer subsidized predator control.
It was difficult to find a spot in grouse valley that did not resemble a private pasture peppered with cow poop.
To those who will try to distort my words, let me be clear: I am not anti-livestock grazing, anti-cow, or anti-rancher. As a sportsman and wildlife watcher, I am pro-wildlife and pro-habitat on public lands.
Should one's private livestock be allowed to impair the camping experience on public lands? If yes, then why? Should cows be allowed to sully a stream corridor (the richest wildlife habitat on a landscape), thereby marring hunting and wildlife watching opportunities?
Should the welfare of private non-native bovines be given precedence over native predators on public lands such as grizzlies and wolves?
Last year, 75 percent of the 20 wolf-related cattle depredations in Wyoming happened on public land and 42 percent of the 195 sheep losses occurred on national forests, Bureau of Land Management tracts or other public parcels.
When assessing the best use of a national forest, there shouldn't be any blind spots or sacred cows. Some of the most outspoken critics of government and condemners of wolves are those who use public lands to make a living and get a sweet deal doing it.
Many are responsible stewards gracious for the privilege; some are not.
If we in the West are going to have an honest discussion about wolves - and we should - then we ought to also have a truthful conversation about the costs of livestock grazing imposed upon taxpayers, the public land, and the corresponding loss of public values including wildlife diversity, especially in Greater Yellowstone.
The impacts of domestic livestock grazing on wildlife inhabiting public lands are huge and far greater than wolves. If we're going to have an honest accounting and blunt discussion, let's put everything on the table.
|
