Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jayrocksd t1_ixekdoq wrote

Reply to comment by thedancingwireless in [Bloomberg] Here’s How America Uses Its Land by JPAnalyst

It seems as though they have classified BLM land as dedicated to livestock, even though they are actually multi-use, and open to the public for recreation along with other uses. Much of it isn't fit for grazing, and others are actual conservation areas. Usually in the areas where they issue grazing permits under the Taylor Grazing Act, the cattle are there three months out of the year with plenty of room to graze. Large herds of grazing animals are actually better for the land than not having them. They eat, trample, and fertilize the grass then move on rather than letting it grow and then die creating a thatch and taking several years to decompose. Grazing herds can actually be a valuable tool in stopping and even reversing desertification.

21

Ok-disaster2022 t1_ixf8gzc wrote

Much of the western prairie environment is adapted for large mammal grazes, though historically that was mostly bison, not cattle. Overgrazing is also a massive problem compared to what bison would have done. Cattle sequester on smaller pasture will contaminate water sources and cause erosion.

Fun fact, some Native American groups would have control burns of forest to expand the prairie and increase capacity for bison.

6

jayrocksd t1_ixfan2q wrote

Overgrazing can be a huge problem. That is why the Taylor Grazing Act was passed, to avoid the issues seen in the Dust Bowl. If grazing herds aren't allowed to move once they have mowed over an area it can have a severely negative affect. That's why the Federal Government hires scientists to monitor and plan these leases. There is plenty of area for herds to move as we're talking about a combined area (630,000 square km) larger than Ukraine.

4

sgigot t1_ixg0l4h wrote

The benefit/adverse effect of grazing livestock depends on the land. The prairies were well-adapted to handle and benefit from bison. Grazing in the desert takes a *long* time to recover from. I've been to Big Bend and Organ Pipe NM and both parks talk about trying to restore the land after overgrazing in the early 1900's. If they remove too much vegetation (or selectively eat certain species) it will have a negative effect - promote erosion, allow non-native invasives to move in, or shift the water.

2

jayrocksd t1_ixga1ou wrote

NPS generally doesn't allow grazing other than probably Capitol Reef which was made from existing BLM land with existing leases. Organ Pipe isn't a good example as the Sonoran Desert probably isn't a good candidate to reverse desertification and that ecoregion is important in itself.

When trying to reverse desertification, herd animals aren't the most important thing, stopping soil erosion is. Grazing animals can also be a negative, but if managed properly they can be a great positive. Ruminant animals are an important part of the ecosystem, whether they be bovine (including bison), ovine, caprine or deer. I strongly suggest you watch this Ted talk. It's certainly not settled science, as some will argue that the benefit is offset by the methane created by ruminant animals. I would argue that the methane production from the great bison herds of North America, which were also ruminant, didn't seem to be a problem, or we wouldn't call climate change man-made.

2