“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana.
This quote or variations of it is sometimes attributed to Winston Churchill. The quote presupposes those condemned have a good grasp on the facts revealed in the past. In other words, to remember something you have to have known it at one time.
Relative to this thought, I have two criticisms of the extreme environmental movement. First, they make pronouncements without telling the truth to further an agenda. Second, knowing the truth, they conveniently forget again for the purposes of furthering that agenda.
What is the agenda? Here in the intermountain west their agenda is to eliminate all livestock grazing on the public ranges. This effort began to heat up just after WWII. Coincidently, this was about the time when range science began to really evaluate the western ranges. The conclusion of most range scientists is there was a great deal of overgrazing in the early settlement of the west and on into the 20th century.
The scientific analysis also resulted in ideas and techniques to decrease overgrazing and the use of livestock in a responsible, managed way to improve the ranges. Without question, most ranchers now acknowledge there were some grazing abuses. They also embrace the science and use their livestock to improve the public ranges they have permits to graze. They don’t hide the truth or fail to address the mistakes of the past. Instead, they improve those ranges by using modern scientifically based managed grazing to protect the resource while keeping it productive and useful for many different interests.
Below is the reason I thought about expressing my views on this issue of who is telling the truth about what is really happening on the ranges of the west, and who is actually doing something to make sure those ranges are productive and sustainable on into the next century of the wise use of those ranges.
The BLM recently ruled the use of categorical exclusions is a valid NEPA process to permit the removal of up to 10,000 acres of pinion- juniper conifers (P/J) in sage brush steppe communities to reestablish the preferred vegetation in areas where the conifers have overrun the brush and grass areas historically dominant at certain elevations above the valley floors in the mountainous west. This encroachment of trees began after fire suppression efforts took hold as the twentieth century advanced.
This decision has created a firestorm among various environmental groups whose spokes persons have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They criticize the BLM for a decision they claim will mean less biodiversity and increased cheat grass invasion. This is wrong in so many ways. I read in another well-respected publication a spokesman for a big game foundation said there is proof such tree removals in sage brush steppes improves habitat for all kinds of wildlife including mule deer.
There are places in eastern Nevada, for instance, where the historic tree population was around one hundred trees per acre where now one thousand trees per acre grow. These monocultures create an environment in which no other plants are able to germinate and grow underneath the canopy. A short walk through one of these monocultured areas proves my point. First, in some P/J infested areas it is almost impossible to walk without being blocked by branches from hundreds and hundreds of trees. Second, the notion that any big game or livestock including a ridden saddle horse could easily make their way through such areas is laughable.
The ground is so bare of any other vegetation it is a virtual desert under these canopies of P/J. Diseased and stunted trees are everywhere just waiting for a strategic lightning strike to burn thousands of acres.
The University of Nevada, Reno has done research which shows the canopy is so thick in places that snow and rain never reach the ground. I have also read each one of these trees transpires at least 15 gallons of water a day. This amounts to billions of gallons a day west wide from the increasingly large P/J forest that is changing the ecological balance all over the west.
I have heard the historic P/J forest in eastern Nevada was about two million acres. This infestation by the current forest exceeds 7 million acres. Imagine what this has done to the water table if 7 million acres of trees transpire what 2 million acres of trees used to. The math is easy. 1000 trees times 15 gallons is 15,000 gallons per acre per day. You can do the rest. Old timers in the area can point to canyons where water from springs used to flow freely which are now dry because too many trees are consuming too much water.
I have personal experience in seeing the benefits of the scientific management of a small piece of private property in an isolated canyon in Central Nevada. The owner accomplished a restoration of historic water and grass by clear cutting trees on the private ground while leaving thousands of acres covered with trees on the public land except for a permitted removal of relatively few trees from the surrounding public land. This limited clear cut on just under 200 aces resulted in a meadow and springs coming back to life to the point that water flowed across the meadow for all but a few of the driest weeks every year. By cutting all the brush off of the meadow and judiciously spreading just a bit of the newly established spring water, the rancher created a vibrant and thriving forage resource that had been lost for many decades.
The result is an important forage resource for his livestock and the return of sage grouse to the important sage/meadow interface area so critical to the survival of new broods of birds in the spring every year. Any livestock producer in the Great Basin can tell you about the dozens of birds they see at this critical time as they ride horseback along these meadow fringes in the spring because the birds and their chicks need the insect food source established in this zone for their survival and that of their broods.
And, so we have the radical environmental community ignoring the science or deciding not to do even a bit of research to admit they are wrong which in turn does nothing to help the resource they claim to care so much about. Their attitude is if the BLM says it is ok there must be something wrong with it because livestock grazing is just one of the uses benefitting from a common sense scientifically justified decision. Thanks for caring so much NGOs.
I’ll see you soon.