Replies

T8 wrote: People think when cattle are removed from rangeland the wildlife flourishes. That is totally false, wildlife depend on water provided to cattle to survive, cattle have been there long enough to become a big part of that eco-system and issues other than water come into play (example, turtles eating cattle dung) when they are removed the wildlife does not flourish, instead much of the wildlife must relocate or die. When large areas are cleared of cattle relocation of wildlife becomes more and more difficult.

Sarge said: while I agree generally, over time it simply reverts back to what it was before the “cattle r roaming”.

I've come to realize that real nature operates without regard to a status quo. The opposite, in fact, as it constantly shifts and changes, always has and always will. If life and "ecosystems" for lack of better word ever remained static, then we would be in serious trouble. Livestock on open land is as right to be there as not, just as men hunting sea otters and abalone on the coasts are right to be there, ecologically, as not. Change is a constant, so we might as well go with it instead of trying to "preserve" the wind and the weather.

Case in point: in the late 1800s, California coast probably had on average small abalone but lots of sea otters who ate them, said sea otters with fur perfect for clothing for folks in cold climates. Pelt hunters hunted sea otters to extinction on the mild California coast (they survived well in other coastal areas), and as a result, the abalone -- basically big sea snails -- exploded in population and size. As a fishery, delicious abalone supported three generations of commercial ab divers, along with sport divers, swimmingly. Suddenly it dropped off in the mid '70s when sea otter populations mysteriously revived and became FEDERALLY protected. What is the livelihood and food source of real living Americans existing and sharing in ecosystems with other wildlife, compared to a sea otter, after all? I mean, priorities, please!

Ecologists who claim extinction of sea otters "permanently" screwed up the ecosystem enough to cause lack of kelp beds in the '60s and '70s, are asking me not to believe my lying eyes. Ecosystems constantly shift and adapt; life does its thing and the idea of "status quo" is quaint and pathetic. The same thing has happened and is happening to America's fisheries on both coasts, as it is to these cattlemen: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS REGULATING THEM OUT OF EXISTENCE.

We have a right to cultivate, hunt, and harvest food, and be confident that the "environment" and harvesters adapt together as they always have. The Federal government wants to remove that right.

Bottom line.

Thanks for the opinion; however, I believe my statement is true. But let me qualify it more. Yes, I agree that the ecosystem is impacted by the “long-term” presence of the cattle, and hence animal life will change as well, along with plant life. But I think the dominating element is the weather. Pull out the cattle, and the ecosystem will attempt to revert back, insofar as the weather was the same as before the cattle were introduced. If the long-term weather has changed to a new state while the cattle were there, the reversion will be slightly different, of course. But remove the big impact factor such as the cattle, and it should revert back to some extent. Note that I am NOT saying that life will flourish, but tend to revert back to the previous state of the ecosystem, whether desolate wasteland or an oasis. The presence of the cattle may have actually improved the ecosystem so that other species flourish as well, but with removal, they would die back to levels before the cattle arrived.