Sections (5-A) and (5-B) of this Chapter 5 are in another file.

(5-A) - Grazing Land Economic Issues - [A1] Desertification Costs, [A2] Water for Grazing, [A3]~US Grazing Fees, [A4] Grazing Economics, [A5] Economics of Alternatives to Grazing, [A6]~Grazing Subsidies, [A7] Land Ownership Patterns, [A8] Feedlot/ Meatpacker Data,
(5-B) - Meat- and Wool Production, Consumption, Exports, Prices - [B1] Meat, Milk and Wool Production, [B2] Meat, Milk and Wool Consumption, [B3] Side Effects of Meat Consumption, [B4]~Meat and Wool Exports, [B5] Feedlot/ Meatpacker Data, [B6] Meat/ Wool Prices,

(5-C) - Side-Effects of Overgrazing - [C1] Plants, [C2] Wildlife, [C3] Water, [C4] Forests and Forest Fires, [C5] People, [C6]~ Livestock, [C7]~Public Access to Public Lands, [C8] Dust storms,
(5-D) - Politics of Grazing - [D1] Anger against federal employees and environmentalists, [D2]~ USFS, [D3] BLM, [D4] Grazing Fee Politics, [D5] Overgrazing Politics, [D6] Subsidy Politics, [D7] Emergency Feed Program Politics, [D8] Public Opinion, [D9]~ Foreign Grazing Politics, [D10]~ Grazing Permit Buyouts,
(5-E) - Grazing Laws - [E1] Major Federal Laws (Chronological order) , [E2] Grazing Permits, [E3]~ Grazing on Western Public Lands - Right or Privilege, [E4] Lawsuits, [E5] Indian Lands, [E6]~ State Laws, [E7] National (US) Wildlife Refuges, [E8] Asia, [E9]~ Europe,
(5-F) - History of Grazing and Grazing Lands - [F1] General, [F2] Oceania, [F3] Africa, [F4]~ Iceland, [F5] Asia, [F6] Major Grasslands of Centuries Past, [F7] US Deserts, [F8] Early US Wildlife, [F9] Early US Livestock Populations, [F10] Latin America, [F11] Native Prairie, [F12]~Trees and Shrubs on Grasslands,
(5-G) - Livestock-Generated Wastes -
(5-H) -Grain-Grass Substitution - [H1] Global, [H2] US, [H3] Outside US,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - og5c
NOTE: The notation (su3) means that the data is used in the document analyzing the sustainability of the productivity of the world's food, fiber and water supply systems. (See elsewhere in this website.)

Field observations and experiments indicate that mesquite trees initiate permanent invasions of North American grasslands by woody plants. These invasions, as individual trees appear in the grassland and become foci for clusters of other shrubs that develop in their vicinity. Livestock apparently play a dual role in mesquite invasion. First, they eat mesquite beans and disperse the seeds in their dung. Second, they graze away grass cover that otherwise can (1) out-compete mesquite seedlings and (2) carry fires that kill young woody plants." ((95B2): p. 200).

Non-indigenous plant species are most likely to invade sites that experience disturbances that differ in type or frequency from their natural disturbance regimes. Native wildlife species do not appear to be major causes of weed invasions (97S1).

Invasion by non-indigenous species are suspected of being the second main cause, following loss of habitat, for the listing of all threatened and endangered species in the US (94F1) (98W1).

Alien annual grasses such as cheatgrass and medusahead and forbs such as starthistles, knapweeds and leafy spurge have invaded over 400,000 km² of Western grasslands, shrub lands, and woodlands (89M1) (90W2) (90B2) (94P2).

Under natural conditions, forage goes into native species that subsequently die and contribute to a closed nutrient-cycling loop. When cows eat forage and are then removed, the nutrient-cycling loop is no longer closed, and hence is subject to degradation ((91J1): pp. 111-121) ((93P1): pp. 10-13).

Herbicide is used to kill sagebrush, snakeweed, mesquite, acacia, shadscale, greasewood, creosote, scrub oak, manzanita, rabbitbrush, other brush and shrubs, juniper, pinyon, tamarisk, cacti, yucca, and a great variety of "weedy" plants and livestock-unpalatable grasses ((91J1): pp. 237-238).

Livestock grazing is frequently accompanied by the massive manipulation of vegetation to increase forage production. This includes such practices as herbicide spraying, plowing and seeding, mechanical control such as chaining (the practice of removing brush by dragging a heavy anchor chain between two Caterpillar tractors), and controlled fire ((95C1): p. 78).

Of the five plant species placed on the National Endangered Species List in August and September of 1989, three were victims of grazing (91J1).

In Hawaii, livestock grazing, pasture-clearing, development, and introduction of exotic species have caused 10% of the 1250 species of flowering plants that were present 200 years ago to become extinct (91J1).

The original US Tallgrass prairie is considered extinct as a fully functional natural ecosystem (p. 45 of (91J1)).

94% of California's interior broadleaf woodlands have been significantly damaged or destroyed, largely by livestock (p. 53 of (91J1)).

Since the beginning of European settlement, the abundance of many native species of grasses has been drastically reduced, and the number of alien species, mostly annuals, has invaded the sagebrush-grass regions. The vegetation of the region appears to have been altered more in the past 100 years than in the previous thousands (81T1).

A study of the ecological health of a 100-acre isolated mesa-top on Tonto National Forest in northeastern Arizona by USFS range ecologists found significantly healthier soils and plant communities than on adjacent national forest land open to grazing. The study, published in the April 2000 issue of Rangelands, concluded "the most striking aspect of Dutchwoman Butte is the diversity, density and vigor of the grasses." The study found 12 species of grass on Dutchwoman Butte-most of them knee and waist high - but found only 2 species of grass on a typical grazed area of a nearby grazing allotment. In addition, grasses created a 40% canopy cover on the ungrazed area, but only 16% on the grazed area. The study, whose primary purpose was to define a baseline of soil health in this region of the Sonora Desert, also found much higher soil infiltration rates-and lower erosion rates-on Dutchwoman Butte. The study further demonstrates that ongoing and historic livestock grazing cause severe erosion problems that continue to harm rivers and streams and the species that depend on them (Source: John C. Horning, Watershed Protection Program, Forest Guardians, 1411 Second Street, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505-988-9126 505-989-8623 fax http://www.fguardians.org).

Effects of over-grazing on plants (86G1):

• a decline in annual production of pasture vegetation and palatable grass species.
• Replaces perennials with annual species that are short-lived and do not hold soil against erosion.
• Compacts soil under trampling hoofs at water holes and in wet season pastures.
• Destabilizes dunes when crest vegetation is eaten.

Co-use of ranges by domestic and bighorn sheep has been consistently linked with declines, die offs, and extinctions of bighorn populations from historical to recent times (82G1).

Ref. (57B1) reported 30-40% losses of pronghorn fawn crops on rangelands heavily grazed by domestic sheep in South Dakota. Ref. (57B1) also reported that pronghorn had higher parasite loads on rangelands grazed by domestic sheep than rangelands grazed by cattle. In Wyoming, illness and deaths of pronghorn fawns have been attributed to parasitic infections that were prevalent on rangelands grazed heavily by sheep. ((96Y1) p. 221).

Blue tongue is probably the most serious disease of pronghorn. Cattle are a primary reservoir for this disease. Cattle do not develop clinical or acute symptoms, but are chronic carriers (83T2) ((96Y1): p. 219).

Among ungulate species, bison, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope have declined the most, each existing at less than 5% of their primeval numbers ((78W3): p. 139).

The prairie dog is a keystone species upon which approximately 170 vertebrate species rely for survival. Eradication of prairie dogs from large areas has led to near extinction of black-footed ferrets. Mountain plovers, ferruginous hawks and swift foxes have been proposed as candidate species under the US Endangered Species Act, and their listing proposals cited prairie dog poisoning as a factor in their decline (94M2).

As of 1919, prairie dog colonies covered 400,000 km², more than 20% of the short-grass prairie landscape in the US. Today 98% of those populations have been eradicated in an ongoing control effort by range managers who view prairie dogs as pests that reduce the amount of grass available to cattle. Prairie dogs provide food or shelter for many other animals, from pronghorn antelope and bison to mice and burrowing owls. The defensive encampments they build attract predators, e.g. hawks, coyotes, snakes, badgers, bobcats, black-footed ferrets ((97B4): pp. 165-6).

Types of animals killed on behalf of the livestock industry: grizzly bear, black bear, wolf, coyote, fox, mountain lion, jaguar, ocelot, jaguarundi, golden eagle, bald eagle, California condor, raven, deer, pronghorn, bighorn, buffalo, elk, horse, burro, prairie dog, jackrabbit, kangaroo rat, pocket mouse, pocket gopher, grasshopper, rattlesnake, etc. ((91J1): pp. 252-314).

In fiscal year 1996 Wildlife Services killed nearly 100,000 predators in the West. Livestock protection accounts for 69% of its Western state office expenditures of federally appropriated funds. Aerial gunning and spring-loaded sodium cyanide traps are the most common methods of lethal predator control used by Wildlife Services in the West, and neither of these methods is able to only target depredating individuals (97P2).

Wildlife tends to shun stock watering tanks. Many large wild animals actively avoid cattle and/ or sheep (and their smell), and thus tanks ((90J1) pp. 216-7).

Although most North American ungulates can move through or over traditional three-wire barbed-wire fences, problems exist. First, not all fences are as loosely constructed, and tighter fences such as woven wire can severely impede movement of native wildlife. Pronghorn antelope are particularly limited in their ability to cross fences, and woven wire fences can effectively fragment their habitat and ultimately cause population decreases or extirpation. Second, even though species such as mule deer can and do easily jump fences, some (especially juveniles) get tangled in them and die every year ((94N2) p. 241).

Analysis of elk/ cattle interactions from a Statement by the late Joy Belsky in a letter of 1/7/00 to the Atlantic Monthly:

Cattle graze the aboveground shoots and leaves of grasses, some of which are old. The plant, because it is programmed to maintain a fixed root/ shoot ratio depending on growth stage, regrows, using stored resources in the root crown and roots. The resulting growth is green, succulent, and usually of higher quality than the older leaves because young leaves normally have a higher nitrogen content than older leaves, which have more cell wall materials). Elk like this young, succulent stuff a lot. The problems are:

• Total biomass of aboveground plant material available to elk after cattle have grazed an area is lower than the original amount - sometimes only 10% as much. So the elk have much less forage, even though it might taste good. Since elk, as a species, survived thousands of years on the mixture of older and younger shoots available to them before cattle arrived in the West, it's probably safe to assume that elk don't need the help of cattle.
• The reason grasses don't produce as much shoots after being grazed is that cattle graze to the plant base, damaging buds for new shoots. In addition, every time the grass regrows, it uses up its stored nitrogen and carbohydrates, having less for the next regrowth. Finally, in the Intermountain West, rainfall is predominantly in the winter and early spring. By the time the cattle have come and gone, the soil is depleted of moisture and there isn't enough water for the plant to grow to it's original size.
• Elk avoid cattle, as well discussed by wildlife biologists Dr. Michael Wisdom and former US Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas in a book entitled "Rangeland Wildlife", edited by Paul R. Krausman and published by the Society of Range Management. Although elk are occasionally seen together with cattle, the above authors conclude that "elk use shifts to areas unoccupied by cattle", entering pastures only after the cattle have left. Therefore elk are presented with less food for a shorter period of time.
• Grasses that have been grazed have less stored carbohydrates to help them get through the winter and resprout the next year; they also have less above-ground standing litter (dried leaves that ranchers call "wolfy thatch") that insulate the grass's growing points at its base from freezing winter winds and desiccating summer winds; and they don't have the dead leaf mulch around their base to moderate soil freezing. The standing dead litter also acts as a solar collector to help melt the snow around plant in the spring. There is a reason bunchgrasses evolved to hold on to their dead leaves rather than be deciduous. Cattle ensure that these plants go into winter scalped. Elk would never graze an area so hard since they tend to graze and move on.
• Cattle graze grasses more than once per season since they also much prefer new succulent shoots. Once you also allow for elk to graze the new sprouts after the cattle leave, you have grasses that are severely stressed. Research has shown that bluebunch wheatgrass that is grazed only once requires 6 years of rest to regain it's original productivity. Even winter grazing on dead leaves damages bluebunch wheatgrass. So elk have less food, less important nutrients, and is kept out of key habitat during much of the year, being forced to occupy less productive land.
• Plants are grazed multiple times, go into the winter with less root mass and stored nutrients, are subjected to freezing or hot desiccating winds, and have lower productivity the next year. In addition, multiple grazing wipes out seed production. Add to this the probability that cattle are increasing invasions by unpalatable weeds and there is little good to be said of cattle grazing in elk habitat.

A review paper by wildlife biologists Dr. Michael Wisdom and former US Forest Service Chief Dr. Jack Ward Thomas entitled "Rangeland Wildlife", edited by Paul R. Krausman and published in a book by the Society of Range Management (some time before 2000) states "elk avoid or decrease their use of areas grazed concurrently by cattle", citing 8 scientific studies. After discussing various research results, they concluded that "the trend seems evident: with the onset of cattle grazing, elk use shifts to areas unoccupied by cattle."

The Arizona Game and Fish Department identified 137 species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals that may face extinction if current habitat trends continue. 80% of these species are strongly affected by the destruction of riparian habitats. Livestock grazing is by far the most common land-use in Arizona (p. 94 of (91J1)).

Bighorn sheep populations in the Southwestern US have been hit hard by livestock-spread diseases. Arizona Game and Fish now spends about $500,000/ year on efforts to recover and relocate bighorn sheep to some of their historic ranges.([50] in (99W2)) Hunters, not ranchers, frequently foot this bill (99W2).

A major program supporting ranching is the federal program known as Animal Damage Control (ADC), or Wildlife Services. The bulk of the $756,126 spent by Arizona's ADC in FY97 went toward killing wildlife to aid the livestock industry ([45] in (99W2)). ADC reported that it killed 3,220 animals including 1,528 coyotes, 54 beavers, 43 mountain lions, and 15 black bears. ADC even kills wildlife for ranchers in federal wilderness areas, in violation of the 1964 Wilderness Act ([46] in (99W2)).

Of 1207 plant- and animal species listed as endangered, threatened or proposed for listing, mining affects 11%, logging affects 12%, and livestock grazing affects 22%. (See "Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the US," in Bioscience (8/98).)

Today, western US bighorns number 20-30,000 - perhaps 1% of their former population (p. 117 of (91J1)).

Today 70,000 pronghorns inhabit the 11 western US states - 5% of their original numbers (p. 117 of (91J1)).

The current western-US moose population of several thousand is a fraction of what it once was (p. 117 of (91J1)).

Species that have declined partly because of livestock grazing include Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, bison, salmon, bull trout, and possibly neo-tropical bird species (94O1).

Poisoning of prairie dogs has reduced their numbers by more than 98% over the past century (94O1).

On BLM lands in southwest Idaho, managers routinely allocate 30-100 times as much forage for cows and sheep as for antelope and deer (85E1).

The BLM and USFS manage their land for only 1% as many deer, elk, bighorn sheep and antelope as cows and sheep (87L1). Comments: This is apparently a national figure.

Grazing is also allowed in most of the larger western US wildlife refuges, e.g. grazing is permitted in 103 of 109 wildlife refuges on the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Rocky Mountain region (89W1).

A law passed to extend cattle grazing for Utah ranchers into Capital Reef National Park (82M1). A range specialist did a study that showed the park being over-grazed by 200-400% (82M1).

A survey of all vertebrate species in Arizona and New Mexico found that 75-80% depend on riparian habitats for at least part of the year. The Nature Conservancy lists the riparian cottonwood community as the rarest of 104 major plant communities in the US. In Arizona and New Mexico, cottonwood-willow communities are home to 100 species of threatened and endangered species. Less than 3% of Arizona's original endowment of riparian vegetation remains, representing 0.001% of Arizona's land area (89W1).

Some adverse effects of over-grazing on wildlife outlined in Ref. (87M1):

• Damage to riparian habitats
• Decline of western sage grouse population in Washington and Oregon
• Decline in Montezuma quail
• Decline in pronghorn, bighorn sheep and deer

Defenders of Wildlife*#* announced (12/30/99) that it has paid almost $50,000 to compensate ranchers for livestock losses from wolf and grizzly activity in 1999. The conservation group asserted that its pioneering program to compensate ranchers for livestock predation continues to buy tolerance for wolves and grizzly bears. The 1999 compensation figures total almost $50,000 with $35,070 paid for wolf incidences and $14,001 paid for grizzly occurrences. Of the $35,070 paid in wolf compensation, $2,152 was paid in Arizona for predation by recently reintroduced Mexican wolves. Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 380,000 members and supporters.
*#* Defenders of Wildlife, 1534 Mansfield Ave, Missoula MT 59801.

Wildlife species requiring undisturbed habitat or high quality landscape have declined on western grazing lands. The Bruneau Hot Springs Snail, the willow flycatcher and the Bonneville cutthroat trout are all endangered as a consequence of habitat loss or degradation due to livestock production (99W1).

Grassland nesting birds are "declining more than any North American species" (GREENLines, 9/10/99).

Many species, e.g. bighorn sheep and antelope, while at higher numbers in the past (when they were subject to market- and year-around meat hunting), are still far below their potential because domestic livestock use continues to compromise the available habitat in ways detrimental to these species (99W1).

Livestock production can increase the numbers of a few wildlife species (e.g. brown-headed cowbirds, carp, whitetail deer), these are, without exception, animals that are widespread and abundant, and that thrive on disturbed or degraded habitats (99W1).

A number of recent review articles looking at livestock effects on wildlife, found that far more species have decreased or been harmed by livestock production than have benefited (99W1). Other literature reviews have concluded that livestock production was the leading cause of decline in native plant species in the West, as well as one of the major agents responsible for the spread of weeds and exotics (99W1).

Nearly 90% of the water taken out of streams in the Colorado River basin is used for irrigation to grow hay and other crops for livestock, according to a 1982 Living Wilderness article (90W3).

90% of water taken from streams in the Colorado River basin is used for irrigation to grow hay and other crops for livestock (p. 215 of (91J1)).

Stream channel fenced from livestock afforded the opportunity to compare sediment loads above (in livestock-grazed area) and below the fenced area. Sampling done at three run-off periods showed reduction in sediment loads of 79%, 48% and 69% after flowing through 3.5 miles of protected channel ((77W2): p. 12).

Nearly all surface waters in the West are fouled with livestock-related contaminants (86S1).

Livestock production is the greatest source of non-point water pollution in the West (90R1).

Developing water sources for livestock often involves taking water from streams, springs, or seeps, where it was used by native plants and animals, and moving it somewhere else for livestock. In other cases, springs have been drilled, resulting in overuse of aquifers and eventual drying up of water sources historically used by native species ((94N2) p. 242, 244).

95% of Arizona's surface waters are polluted. Livestock are the leading cause (p. 107 of (91J1)).

Cattle represent the West's largest source of non-point water pollution. Nearly all surface waters of the western US are fouled with livestock-related contaminants (p.107 of (91J1)).

Stockmen (livestock) account for over 50% of California water use (p. 215 of (91J1)).

97.5% of Montana water is used for some form of livestock production (p. 215 of (91J1)).

Livestock production accounts for more than 70% of water consumed in the 11 western states. In nearly half of the west (generally the most arid portions) in an average year, 70% or more of all surface water is taken, mostly for livestock production (p. 215 of (91J1)).

Lake Chad (Africa?) has shrunk to 20% of its size around 1970, mostly due to livestock-caused desertification and livestock production practices (p. 362 of (91J1)).

By reducing the abundance of fine fuels that formerly carried frequent, low-intensity fires through forests, livestock contribute to the formation of shade-tolerant, but fire-sensitive dense stands highly susceptible to damage by insects and pathogens. This further contributes to the likelihood of stand-replacing fires. An example of the difference in forest density that can result from livestock grazing was provided (51R1). Two areas, distinguished only by the grazing of livestock, differed markedly in the density of small-diameter trees: 85 trees/ acre in the non-grazed region compared to 3291 trees/ acre in the grazed region (97B2).

Negative effects of prescribed burning:

• Reduction or elimination of natural fires causing reduction or elimination of native fire-dependent species;
• Destruction of brush land and dependent wildlife;
• In forests, a reduction of foliage height diversity, creating a 2-layered instead of multi-layered forest, with attendant reduction in wildlife diversity;
• In grass/ shrub-land, diminishment of native species along with target shrubs;
• Because organic litter doesn't have time to rebuild and all of each target area is burned, there is more frequent and more complete loss of energy stored in ground litter than with natural fires;
• More frequent and more complete elimination of wildlife cover at ground level than with natural fires;
• Recurrent short-term elimination of ground level food supplies needed by wildlife;
• Because prescribed fire is managed to burn all of a target area evenly, thereby creating a relative biotic monoscape, there is increased danger of pest and disease outbreaks;
• Because prescribed burns provide much less diversity of impact than natural fires, biome diversity is reduced;
• Most natural fires burn near the end of or following growing seasons, after most animal inhabitants have finished breeding. Prescribed burning often is done preceding or early in growing seasons, when it may hamper breeding, destroy nests, and kill small animals ((91J1): pp. 243-4).

On the overgrazed lands of the southwestern US, fire suppression has allowed woody species such as big sagebrush, pinyon pine, and juniper to invade millions of acres of what were previously grasslands or mixed grassland/ shrub-lands, profoundly changing their ecological characteristics ((95C1): pp. 69-70).

More than 260 million acres of US forests have been cleared specifically for livestock (an area the size of Texas and California combined) (p. 230 of (91J1)).

More than 2/3 of the 70 million acres of US forests cleared during 1967-75 were converted to grazing land (p. 231 of (91J1)).

More than 60% of Mexico's original rainforest has been destroyed - largely to create cattle pasture (p. 355 of (91J1)).

Since 1970, farmers and ranchers have converted more than 200,000 km² of Latin America's moist tropical forest to cattle pasture (91D1). Comments: These converted tropical pastures last 5-10 years before they must be abandoned for 20-30 years to restore soil fertility (91D1).

Prior to Euro-American settlement during 1820-90, the arid and semi-arid (low- to mid-elevations) forests of the Intermountain West (Cascade/ Sierra Nevada to Rocky Mountains) maintained the trees at low densities by competitive exclusion of tree seedlings by dense understory grasses and frequent thinning of understory trees by low-density surface fires which did not harm the larger trees. Grazing eliminated much of the grass, and reduced surface fire frequency by consuming the herbaceous vegetation which otherwise would have dried into the fine fuels necessary to carry the fire. This resulted in many small trees in the understory, and fires that were far more lethal to large trees (97B2). Sharp increases in tree density have led to less productive and aesthetically pleasing forests, reduced nutrient cycling, widespread insect infestations, greater tree mortality, increased fuel buildup and increased fire density. These changes have been attributed almost entirely to fire exclusion, which prevents the natural thinning of younger trees and promotes high grading. (97B2) As forests grew denser they became shadier, resulting in more shade-tolerant (but less fire-resistant) tree species such as Douglas fir, grand fir, and white fir (97B2).

Scientists have long known that overgrazing is the first cause of destructive fires in the Western pine forests. Tree-ring studies show that the upsurge of large fires in the late 1800s predates the practice of fire suppression, and suggests that overgrazing by livestock played the primary role. The Forest Service contends that overgrazing is a problem of the past and that grazing is now moderate enough to correct the problem. Although cattle numbers have gone down since last century, almost half the grass is still eaten by cattle in most Southwestern grazing allotments. It is hard to see how this could be considered a "moderate" impact. Studies have shown that removal of cattle permits forests to return to a normal fire cycle.

Originally, most Ponderosa Pine and mixed-conifer forests of the Intermountain West were open and park-like, with large, majestic trees underlain by dense grass swards. Due to nearly a century of active fire prevention, fire fighting, and livestock grazing, which eliminates the fine fuels necessary to carry low-intensity surface fires, even greater numbers of tree seedlings and saplings have survived to maturity. Forests that were once open and park-like due to periodic thinning by low-intensity ground fire now develop into dense thickets. Many forests in the region have not been significantly affected by recent changes in the fire regime. Riparian forests and wetter forests on north-facing slopes and at higher elevations traditional experienced fewer fires. And forest types such as high-elevation Lodgepole Pine and Engelmann Spruce-subalpine Fir have always developed into dense flammable forests, which were periodically consumed by stand-replacing fires (96B3).

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) report of 9-1-00 concluding that lower logging levels on National Forests over the last decade did not contribute to intense forest fires this summer. While the timber industry has blamed lack of logging for the fires, the CRS, Congress's research arm, found that there was no correlation between declines in logging and fire intensity or extent.

The table above shows that 3.2% of the fires were on National Forest land. The principal habitat burned was on BLM sagebrush land, State and Indian Lands, again mostly sagebrush. The problem is that cattle grazing has turned these areas into sagebrush thickets, dried out the soil and made the area into a tinderbox. The same is true where these habitats exist on Forest Lands. It would behoove everyone to consider what the absence of grazing and desertification would mean. These areas would have grasses, mosses and soil moisture. In addition, once burned, the sagebrush would become less dominant leaving grassland and those burned rather frequently.

Timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate, and fuels accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity (Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, 1996. Final Report to Congress http://www.wildfireinfo.org/logging_science.html)

"Logged areas generally show a strong association with increased rate of spread and flame length, thereby suggesting that tree harvesting could affect the potential fire behavior within landscapes. (Historical and Current Forest Landscapes in Eastern Oregon and Washington. Part II: Linking Vegetation Characteristics to Potential Fire Behavior and Related Smoke Production).

Fire severity has generally increased and fire frequency has generally decreased over the last 200 years. The primary causative factors behind fire regime changes are effective fire prevention and suppression strategies, selection and regeneration cutting, domestic livestock grazing, and the introduction of exotic plants (Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin).

Logging removes fire resistant material (large trees), while increasing highly flammable materials (bark, small branches, small-diameter trees) and leaving behind materials that have a high surface area to volume ratio. In the absence of a natural fire regime that allows for the removal of these materials by periodic low intensity fires, logging creates conditions that are ripe for catastrophic fire.

There is no foundation for the contention that environmental groups have interfered with the implementation of fuel management projects on the part of the USFS. A report dated 8/31/01 by the US General Accounting Office in fact concluded that appeals and litigation on the part of environmental groups has had nothing to do with the recent increase in catastrophic fires. This report states, "In summary, as of 7/18/01, the USFS had completed the necessary environmental analyses and had decided to implement 1671 hazardous fuel reduction projects in fiscal year 2001. Of these projects, 20 (about 1%) had been appealed and none had been litigated. Appellants included environmental groups, recreation groups, private industry interests, and individuals." This report may be found in its entirety on the GAO's web site, http://www.gao.gov/.

In the Indian state of Rajasthan and Karnataka, fodder supplies for grazing animals satisfies 50-80% of need, leaving large numbers of emaciated, unproductive cattle (Ref. 10 of Chapter 6 of (94B3)).

Effects of over-grazing on livestock (86G1): a decline in livestock health and consequent fall in milk and meat production.

Arizona's Adopt-A-Ranch program provides a way for citizen volunteers to repair fences, construct water pipelines, maintain roads, and pick up trash for 20 cattle ranchers ([60] in (99W2)). The idea is that this might make ranchers more willing to allow the public to have access to public lands (99W2).

Ranchers have blocked off access to 4.5 million acres of public and state trust land in Arizona with fences and locked gates (AZ Game and Fish Department estimate) ([58] in (99W2)). The AZ Game and Fish Department's land access program spends $0.5 million/ year from the Heritage Fund to help hunters and recreationists gain greater access to public lands controlled by ranchers ([59] in (99W2)).

Violence directed "against federal resource managers, largely in the West," has steadily risen since 1995. 1998 saw 100 incidents "of physical attack, destruction, or a direct threat," up 75% over 1997. Incidents appear to involve access to rangeland and other resource management issues. (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) 9/2/99 report) See GREENLines Issue #964, 9/15/99 (Rfeather@albq.defenders.org).

There's fear among federal employees in southern Utah that angry rhetoric by residents opposed to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument will turn violent. Locals see monument employees as arrogant bureaucrats determined to eradicate a ranching way of life more than a century old. Monument employees are frequent targets of verbal abuse in Kanab and Escalante. When employees go into the monument itself, they are required to stay in radio contact with dispatchers or to go into the field in pairs (Jerry Spangler, "Will rhetoric against feds turn violent in Southern Utah? Federal employees watch their backs as locals heat up" Deseret News 12/5/99).

Anger against federal employees and environmentalists is nothing new in rural Utah or elsewhere in the rural West. "Anti-federal fervor" permeates much of southern Utah, where issues such as wilderness, monument management plans, endangered species and local ownership of roads are seen as patriotic calls to arms, figuratively speaking. Iron County Commissioner Dennis E. Stowell recently told Congress the commissioners "are greatly concerned that the feelings against the federal government are reaching an explosive state and that bloodshed could result in Iron County" over those kinds of issues. Environmental activists who live in southern Utah say the anti-federal feelings have been directed at them, too. Federal employees make an easy target in communities characterized by high unemployment and plummeting optimism" (Jerry Spangler, "Will rhetoric against feds turn violent in S. Utah? Federal employees watch their backs as locals heat up" Deseret News 12/5/99).

The USFS is credited with being more resistant to rancher- and other political pressures to permit over-grazing - and with having grazing lands in better shape than BLM lands. The reasons are:

• The USFS has several more important constituencies - timber and recreation;
• USFS lands are at higher elevations where they get more rainfall and recover faster than hotter, drier BLM lands,

The USFS got into the business of regulating earlier (79F1).

A USFS biologist (Renee Galeano Popp, a 20-year veteran) has resigned citing inconsistencies and politically driven agendas in agency management of National Forests and citing abuses of livestock grazing and logging in the Southwest. The outgoing Forest Supervisor said "range management is a corpse on life-support, and no one will pull the plug" (5/21/98 Southwest Biodiversity Alert from Southwest Center for Biological Diversity).

The USFS wanted to favor small ranchers over large. But to support existing small ranchers, they had to allow excessive livestock on the land. The Taylor Grazing Act (1934) similarly committed the BLM to sustain over-grazing in the name of social welfare (94O1).

In 1949, Congress increased funding for National Forest range reclamation by ten times. The activities funded (Destruction of pinyon-juniper trees and seeding of crested wheat grass did the range ecosystem far more harm than good (94O1).)

The author of Ref. (75W1) contends that the BLM is under-manned, under-budgeted, and frustrated by the influence of the stockmen's advisory board (established by the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934) (75W1).

The latest BLM plan proposed increased livestock grazing in Idaho over the next 20 years by 42-66% (85E1).

Public grazing policies are economically and ecologically unsustainable. But they permit federal agencies to have big budgets, ranchers to be insulated from the effects of their over-grazing, and Congress to tell itself that it is supporting family farms (94O1).

Ref. (74U1) cites a BLM study of its Nevada lands that concluded:

• The BLM is more handicapped than helped by the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act which effectively puts control of grazing allotments in the hands of ranchers;
• It is not unusual for a single BLM employee to manage one million acres of public land;
• BLM has no statutory authority to make protective regulations, much less enforce them (74U1).

68 million people/ year use public lands managed by the BLM - as compared to 22,000 ranchers who graze their animals on it (Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 7/25/95).

Ref. (91W1) is a manual for private citizens interested in influencing BLM grazing management decisions. It gives addresses of all BLM State, District and Resource Area offices and a map showing District boundaries.

In 1990, GAO found that BLM's efforts to deter grazing trespassers were "inadequate." (90G1) (94D1).

The 1978 Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) requires that grazing fees reflect annual changes in the cost of production "to prevent economic disruption and harm to the western livestock industry" (88S1).

The Clinton Administration proposed to raise grazing fees to $3.51 to $5.05/ AUM (Current fee: $1.86/ AUM). The proposal also called for higher riparian ecosystem management standards (93G1).

The National taxpayers Union backed away from promoting mining and grazing reforms after its attach on federal subsidies drew fury from House Republicans (Wall Street Journal, 9/8/95).

In 8/93 the Interior Department proposed raising grazing fees to $4.28/ AUM from the current $1.86, but the plan met with a Senate filibuster (Wall Street Journal, 2/22/94).

Bruce Babbitt (Interior Secretary) abandoned his plans to impose higher grazing fees on the Department's 270 million acres (1.1 million km²) (New York Times, 2/19/95).

The US Grazing Service attempted to raise grazing fees in the 1940s (along with other agencies and private organizations) on the grounds that the fees covered only 20% of administrative costs. For that, its budget was cut 50%, its staff cut from 250 to less than 50, and in 1946 it was combined with the General Land Office to form the BLM (p. 370 of (91J1)) (94O1).

The USFS wanted to favor small ranchers over large. But to support existing small ranchers they had to allow excessive livestock on the land. The Taylor Grazing Act (1934) similarly committed the BLM to sustain over-grazing in the name of social welfare (94O1).

Ref. (82S1) claims "over-grazing occurred previous to the 1930s, but it has since been largely controlled due to regulatory control and better grazing management systems by livestock producers" (82S1).

Political pressures from the livestock industry during 1934-76 effectively hamstrung the implementation of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (Ref. 87 of (81S1)).

In 1986 the Interior Department's Inspector General reported interference by Washington DC officials with local efforts to reduce livestock numbers (Ref. 29 of (89W2)).

Ranchers fight proposals to reduce stocking by challenging the validity of the monitoring data. This has driven monitoring costs so high that federal agencies cannot afford to prove to a judge that livestock numbers exceed carrying-capacity. So they negotiate small reductions that leave the range still over-grazed (94O1).

A proposed set of public range-management reforms aimed at reducing over-grazing is discussed in Ref. (94O1) (p. 54).

Resource agencies have been plagued with accounts of battles with ranchers who do not wish to heed environmental restrictions (91W2) (92B1) (93B1) (94D1).

In 1988, the GAO found that thousands of miles of riparian areas on federal lands required restoration, but had little chance of recovery because of the perceived unwillingness of the agencies to place restrictions on grazing permittees (88G1) (94D1).

Worldwide, subsidies worth at least $650 billion, equivalent to 9% of all government revenues, support logging, mining, oil drilling, livestock grazing, farming (including irrigation), fishing, energy consumption and driving (94U3) (99R2) (98R1).

Many ranches today are owned by government entities, multinational corporations, real estate developers, non-profit organizations like the Nature Conservancy, and a host of wealthy individuals who take advantage of lucrative ranching subsidies and tax benefits ([4] in (99W2)).

In 1992, the Department of Energy (DOE) and BLM needed to use an allotment leased to Gene Hollenbeck of Montrose, Colorado, to accommodate DOE use of a road crossing the allotment for six years. In spite of the two-year termination clause in Mr. Hollenbeck's grazing permit, the possibility of litigation led the agencies to provide a generous settlement. DOE agreed to pay all costs of grazing Hollenbeck's cattle on private land for six years (94D1).

The New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA) is the only cabinet-level department that does not submit an operating budget or budget request to the state legislature, according to an official at the Legislative Finance Committee. Its detailed budget (money spent largely to subsidize ranchers) is not available in any public library or government office in Santa Fe (99W2).

Political problems with the Emergency Feed Program administered by the USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service are described in Ref. (94O1).

Socio-economic surveys conducted by Ref. (96S1) concluded that continued livestock grazing with its concomitant loss of habitat, species, and ecological function is not what the citizens of the Basin want. The ecological costs of grazing are far greater than the economic and social benefits of public-land ranching. When citizens of the Columbia Basin were asked how they value the Basin's public lands, they rated the "existence value" of non-roaded areas highest (47%), followed by recreational opportunities such as camping, motor viewing, and winter sports (38%). The value placed by the public on livestock grazing was not presented, but it is probably less than 1%. (Grazing was embedded in a category called "Other" (3.4%) that included mushroom and firewood gathering, Christmas tree harvesting, and berry-picking) (97B3).

Africa (Kalahari): Borehole-drilling removed protection against over-grazing: lack of water. Rich people benefited (They could afford to drill wells). Among Tswana, surface water is common property, but wells are private property (83C3).

In the letter signed by Kerr, he states "Conservationists and ranchers will probably never agree on most public lands grazing issues. But we need only agree on one thing: that if you want to sell your interest in your grazing permit back to the government, you ought to be able to do so." The letter recites the many hardships facing public lands ranchers.

Federal public lands grazing permits are increasingly becoming stranded investments due to a multitude of factors, including, but not limited to:

(1) Irreconcilable multiple use conflicts;

(2) An increasing number of recreationists on public lands spilling out from increasing urban populations;

(3) Increased enforcement of environmental laws;

(4) Foreign beef imports,

(5) The increased economic and political clout of meat packers.

• Grazing damages entire landscapes and is a major source of non-point water pollution.
• Domestic livestock compete with and displace native fish and wildlife species. Grazing is listed as a contributing factor in the decline of 22% of all species listed on the federal threatened and endangered species list.

• The direct and indirect costs to taxpayers ($130-500 million annually) of managing the federal grazing program on US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands greatly exceeds the revenue generated from grazing fees (less than $15 million annually).

• Public-lands ranching is at best a marginal economic pursuit. Most public lands ranches have a negative to 3% nominal return on investment, which fails even to keep pace with inflation.
• The average acre of private lands pasture in the East is 82 times more productive than the average acre of Bureau of Land Management grazing lands in the Western US.
• The current drought has increased hardships for ranchers, forcing many to reduce or eliminate their herds. Even if the drought were to end now, many ranchers could not afford a new herd to resume their grazing and would stand to lose their grazing permits and the market value they once held under current law.
• Many permittees are approaching retirement age and do not have children who are able or willing to come back and take over the family ranch.
• Conflicts with other uses of federal public lands (endangered species recovery, wildlife habitat, protection of water quality/ quantity, increasing recreation and other purposes) are making public lands livestock grazing ever more problematic for grazing permittees.

All facts documented at www.publiclandsranching.org.

Laws designed to encourage settlement of the western frontier: the Pre-Emption Act of 1841, the Homestead Act of 1862, the Timber Culture Act of 1873, the Desert Land Act of 1877, and the Timber and Stone Act of 1878 (91J1).

Unlawful Enclosures Act of 1885: This law used military force to stop ranchers from closing open rangeland to outside livestock. This led to rampant over-grazing (94O1).
Forest Homestead Act of 1911: The opened certain national forest lands to homesteading over USFS objections. Settlers needed to graze livestock to survive. WWI resulted in rampant over-grazing and loans to increase herd size. Bankruptcies after WWI permitted the USFS to recover most of the homesteaded land (94O1).
1916 Stock Raising Homestead Act: This act raised the homestead limit to 640 acres. But since the better lands were long since gone, most settlers soon abandoned their claims. The law resulted in increasing pressure for what little grass was left on the diminishing public lands (72H1).
Taylor Grazing Act of 1934: In the 1800s and into the mid-1930s, livestock numbers increased far beyond the capacity of the range. So Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934. The Act's objectives were not achieved. Grazing privileges were allocated largely on the laws of use prior to the Act. Little attempt was made to regulate grazing according to carrying capacity of the range. Also there was little public interest in rangeland conditions during that period (78M1) (Ref. 82 of (81S1)). The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 had the expressed intent of eliminating nomadic herding, stopping indiscriminate settlement and grazing, stabilizing the grazing industry, and restoring damaged land (91J1). The Taylor Grazing Act directed the Secretary of the Interior "to stop injury to public grazing lands by preventing over-grazing" (94O1).
Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937: Under this act, the federal government paid county back taxes to gain title to failed homesteads comprising millions of acres of ranch lands on the high plains. Initially these Land-Utilization (LU) lands were managed by the USDA (94O1).
Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971: Concern over abuse and exploitation of wild horses led to passage of this act which granted the animals protection. Today there are 42,000 wild horses and burros on public land - vs. 4.3 million cattle and sheep (91W1). Livestock operators routinely blame overgrazing problems on wild horses (91W1).
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974: This act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to develop, maintain and revise land- and resource-management plans for the national forests that provide for multiple-use and sustained yield of forests products and services.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976: This act requires the Secretary of the Interior to develop, maintain and revise land-use plans for the public lands that use and observe the principles of multiple-use and sustained yield. The FLPMA established the policy that BLM lands should be managed under the principles of multiple-use and sustained yield (89D1) (79F1). Another hope for improvement at the time was a NRDC lawsuit requiring the BLM to file meaningful environmental impact statements. Also the BLM issued new grazing regulations in 1978 (79F1). The FLPMA made the BLM responsible for the long-term productivity of their public rangelands (81S1). The FLPMA attempted to bring the BLM up to USFS standards (inventories, planning processes, sustained-yield- and multiple-use management) (94O1).

The FLPMA of 1976 allowed USFS and BLM to keep half of their grazing fees for ranch improvements. The NFMA of 1976 allowed the USFS to fund range improvements out of timber receipts. Recently the USFS has devoted $3 million/ year of timber receipts to range improvements (94O1).

Under FLPMA, both BLM and USFS should receive fair market value for livestock forage on their lands, although they are also subject to a separate mandate to develop an "equitable" fee structure (94D1).

Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA) of Oct. 1978 This act provided $365 million for "on-the-ground range improvements". Its need was documented by a 1975 BLM survey claiming that 135.3 million acres (83% of the range administered by the BLM) was in unsatisfactory or worse condition. (The 1936 report found 99% of the public range in static or declining condition.) (79F1).

In the PRIA, a law applicable to the BLM and USFS, Congress states that it is establishing and reaffirming a national policy and commitment to manage, maintain, and improve the condition of the public range lands so that they become as productive as possible for all range land values. The PRIA reaffirmed the national policy and commitment to multiple-use and sustained yield as set forth in the FLPMA (89D1).

Federal range managers set stocking rates to use 50% of key livestock-forage species. Research has found net revenues to be greatest if livestock eat 35% of the key species. But if ranchers do this, they lose part of their grazing permits (94O1). Comments: Ref. (94O1) compiles facts, figures and arguments for putting much of the blame for over-grazing on government incompetence.

Grazing permits don't allow ranchers to rent/sell their interests to recreation, hunting and fishing even though such usage may be more profitable. If permit holders don't graze their land, they lose their grazing permits (94O1).

The USFS requires that the permit holder own the livestock and base property associated with the grazing allotment (94D1).

Failure of the agencies to enforce the 2-years' notice provision in grazing leases can also provide an additional subsidy. Although grazing regulations emphasize that grazing is a privilege that can be revoked, some ranchers have claimed a property right in their grazing permits (94D1).

BLM grazing permits are deemed a privilege that may be terminated upon two years' notice to the permit holder (94D1).

BLM allows sub-leasing or transfers of grazing permits, while the USFS does not, though some illicit transfers have been reported (94D1). BLM will approve transfers of permits upon application, and allows the permit to pass on with the base property when the owner dies. The USFS prohibition on transfers ensures that the benefit of the grazing permit stays with the original permittee, and that the original permittee cannot profit by selling the subsidy along with the permit (94D1).

BLM allows the livestock to be leased to the permit holder, or the permit holder to lease out the use of the land to another's livestock, so long as the permit holder controls the livestock. The property ownership required for a BLM permit can be as minor as ownership or control of stock watering rights associated with the allotment (94D1).

Designated wilderness areas on federal lands may still be used for grazing allotments. The allottees at times have used these areas in a manner inconsistent with their wilderness use (94D1).

In eastern National Forests, the USFS uses a bidding system to price and allocate grazing allotments (94D1).

The Supreme Court will consider an appeal by ranching groups to challenge the "regulation of livestock grazing" on 170 million acres (688,000 km²) of western public lands. The appeal seeks to reverse 1995 rule changes that require permits to conform to land-use plans, make permanent improvements public property and allow environmental groups and others to apply for grazing permits. The ranchers contend that "grazing privileges" are really an "indefinitely continuing right." (AP, 10/12/99).

As recently at 2/23/99, the Tenth Circuit US Court of Appeals, ruling in Diamond Bar Cattle Co. vs. US, cited a long history of court decisions affirming that the grazing of livestock on public land is not a right but a privilege that can be revoked by the government at any time.

A lawsuit by the Southern Paiute [Native American] Consortium has stopped the BLM from chaining 55,000 acres (223 km²) of federal land. The Paiute are calling for a nation-wide ban on chaining (GREENLines Issue #387, 5/26/97).

The Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest filed suit in 1997 on behalf of trust land beneficiaries in an attempt to stop some of the Land Department's most egregious leasing practices. The Center for Law charged that the Land Department did not advertise the availability of grazing leases to anyone but the existing lessees, did not seek or receive sealed bids for lease renewals; and did not collect revenues when lessees profited from sub-leasing state land. Court ruled in favor of the Center for Law, but the Land Department appealed. Resolution is pending ([21] in (99W2)).

The Center for Law filed suit in May 1998 on behalf of a hunting group and an environmental group that had been denied grazing leases even though the groups had offered 2-5 times the current rate for the parcels ([22] in (99W2)).

In a landmark decision in 1998, the federal government agreed to remove cattle from stream areas on 57 grazing allotments on the Gila and Apache-Sitgreaves national forests in response to a lawsuit from Forest Guardians and other environmentalists (99R1).

The Navajo Nation has had the regulatory authority for grazing of its public rangelands for almost 40 years, but tribal policies and programs "have not emphasized these resources" (97W1).
Comments: This is probably a euphemism for ignoring massive over-grazing.

Natural resource issues involving game and non-game animals, endangered species habitat, riparian management, and wilderness are handled in the Arizona Land Department's Range Section instead of in its Natural Resources Conservation Section (99W2).

In New Mexico, there once were more than 13 million acres of surface land and 8.75 million acres of mineral rights held in trust for public schools and other designated beneficiaries. Over the years, millions of acres of New Mexico's trust land have been sold off to ranchers at low prices, and much of what remains has been damaged by abuse and neglect. In 1999 only 9 million acres of trust land remained (99W2).

New Mexico's legislature empowers the Taxation and Revenue Department to dictate the value of "grazing lands" to all county assessors. Those values are based on the carrying capacity of grazing land, as determined by the ranching industry at a special meeting that only insiders know about ([28] in (99W2)). For tax year 1998, county assessors value grazing land based on a formula of 15 cents multiplied by the animal units per section to arrive at the taxable value per acre (99W2).

The New Mexico Department of Agriculture holds all power to regulate pesticides, which explains why farmers and ranchers are exempt from licensing and regulation requirements that apply to other pesticide applicators (99W2). The Arizona Department of Agriculture operates in a like fashion (99W2).

Even if Arizonans just let a neighboring rancher graze cattle on their land for a few days a year, they can claim an "agricultural exemption" on their property tax bill. "Rent-a-cow" schemes allow landowners to avoid paying taxes on prime real estate. In 1992 a group of California-based investors was paying $98/ year in property taxes on Pima County AZ land valued at $6.1 million ([34] in (99W2)).

Criteria for getting NM property classified as agricultural allow virtually all large landowners to reduce their property taxes to almost nothing just by putting livestock on the land (99W2).

Former New Mexico Governor Bruce King's 800 acres of prime real estate northwest of Santa Fe was appraised at $2.8 million, but his 1996 property tax bill was reduced to $23.63, because he allowed a neighbor's cows to graze there. About 2,000 properties in Santa Fe County have minimal tax values because property owners have claimed this agricultural exemption ([29] in (99W2)).

New Mexico's Rangeland Protection Act was passed purportedly to "enhance the multiple-use management, development and conservation of rangeland in New Mexico." but the real focus of this act was to fund brush and weed control on rangeland to aid ranchers (99W2).

National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs), administered by the US Fish & Wildlife Service, are the only federal lands in the US where wildlife has officially been given higher priority than recreational and commercial activities. Federal law states that no recreational or commercial use shall be permitted on these lands unless the Secretary of the Interior determines that these activities are compatible with the primary purposes for which Refuges are established. As of 1991, 156 of the 368 NWRs in the 17 Western states and Pacific Islands allowed commercial livestock grazing and/or haying ((91J1) p. 470).

[E8] - Grazing Laws - Asia

Episodes of channel trenching (arroyo cutting) certainly occurred prior to the introduction of livestock (25B1) (87K1) (94F2). Most reviewers, however, conclude that, at the least, livestock have been a contributing factor to the entrenching of stream channels in the US Southwest (See list of 4 references in Ref. (94F2)).

Grass appeared 60 million years ago. Prairie grassland developed 15 million years ago, along with large herds of herbivores (p. 43 of (91J1)).

"Resolved, that none of us know, or care to know, anything about grasses, native or otherwise, outside the fact that for the present there are lots of them, the best on record, and we are after getting the most out of them while they last." (a resolution by a West Texas cattleman's organization in 1898 from Paul Shepard's book "Nature and Madness")

Studies of soil in a mostly dry lake bed in Australia show that monsoons visited Australia yearly for the past 150,000 years, but 10,000 years ago when monsoons in Africa and India began to get stronger, Australian storms didn't. This is attributed to humans who are thought to have arrived in Australia 50,000 years ago. (Large-scale land-clearing fires reduced the vegetation, making it harder for moisture to transpire from the land to replenish atmospheric moisture (97M2).)

Ref. (56C1) gives a map of the pre-European vegetation cover of South Island, New Zealand, and of the current remaining tussock grasslands. Sheep began grazing the original tussock grassland on the coast in the early 1840s and pushed to the limit of the grasslands by 1870. Most of the grassland has thus been under grazing pressure for a century (p. 751 of (56C1)).

The Sahara Desert was tree-covered as recently as 6000 BC. It was turned to a desert by nomadic tribes that burned trees to provide grazing land (p. 362 of (91J1)). Ancient farming villages have been found buried in the Sahara Desert (79S1). Ref. (70C1) cites references supporting the argument that the climate of the Sahara has not changed in the past 9000 years, and that random climatic variations eliminated the glacial relicts of Saharan fauna and flora, and that human activities have greatly accelerated the deterioration of the Sahara (70C1). An excellent history of the Sahara Desert is found in Ref. (56H1). The area was much wetter in the "Neolithic Wet Phase" starting about the middle of the sixth millennium BC and continuing about 3000 years before becoming drier. Traces of Neolithic culture have been found all around the border of the desert and on the tops of high mountains of the central Sahara. There is much debate on the history of the climate of the Sahara region, as the article summarizes (56H1).

[F3b] - Africa - East Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, and Tanzania) (Note: Eritrea is now part of Ethiopia. It bordered on the Red Sea.) -

The Masai of East Africa seem to have migrated southward over many centuries preceding the colonial era, abandoning denuding and over-grazing lands (Ref. 18 of (76E1)).

Sheepherders long ago stripped off virtually all the forest that once covered Iceland. Subsequent over-grazing prevents it from growing back (p. 363 of (91J1)).

Ref. (79S1) cites references contending that the Rajasthan Desert (million km²) of India (site of the Indus Valley civilization) was created by over-grazing and consequent albedo changes (and dust) that reduced rainfall (79S1).

2000 years ago, the center of India's Thar Desert was a jungle (82S1).

Ref. (76E2) cites work of R. Bryson pointing out that the ruined cities of Hacoppa and Mohenjo-Daro, once part of an empire that was the granary of northwest India in 2000 BC, was abandoned when deserts swept in around 1900 BC (76E2).

Some areas which were grass-lands in 1600 include the South African Veld, the Argentine Pampa, the tussock grassland of the South Island of New Zealand, the Pacific bunch grasslands of California, the Columbia Basin, the great mid-continent grass land of North America, and the Manchurian grass land (56C1).

Ref. (56C1) gives a map of unplowed grass lands of western North America as of the 16th century and currently.

Patagonia (southern Argentina) was settled in the 19th century. Its sheep ranches helped make Argentina one of the world's wealthiest countries. Over-grazing turned Patagonia into a barren plateau reminiscent of South Dakota (94N1).

Ref. (70C1) contends that the Sonoran Desert of Arizona and much of the Chihuahuan Desert of New Mexico have been created by over-grazing during the past few centuries (since the European invasion) (p. 59 of (70C1)) (Ref. 8 of (76E1)).

The present desolate shifting-sand area that lies between the Hopi villages and the Colorado River was such good pasture late in the 18th century that Father Escalante, returning home from his canyon explorations, rested his travel-worn animals there to regain flesh. The effects of Navajo sheep herding in little more than a century, and mainly in the past 60 years, are well documented (56S1).

Much public land in the US West lies between the Sierra-Cascades and the Rocky Mountains (the "Intermountain West"). Most of this region never had large herds of grazing herbivores, hence plant species and soils are not well adapted to continual removal and trampling. The area without significant herd impact includes most of the Great Basin, the southwestern grasslands, the Palouse prairie, California grasslands and various deserts like Mohave, Sonoran and Chihuahuan (99W1).

Grasslands of the US Great Plains are characterized by rhizomatous grasses and a lack of microbiotic crusts (94F2). Thus they are well adapted to withstand herbivory by large ungulates (See 2 references cited in Ref. (94F2). Comments: Also these grasslands are moister than lands further west.

West of the Rocky Mountains, bison were rare or absent in Holocene times. Bison were present along the northern and western perimeter of the Great Basin and absent altogether from Arizona, western New Mexico and most of California (See the 9 references cited in Ref. (94F2)).

Large herds of bison, elk, and antelope were common on the US Great Plains (99W1).
Comments: They apparently were not as common in the Intermountain West.

Native grazers such as deer, elk, and pronghorn are not thought to have been numerous enough to have exerted strong selective pressures on native grasses and broadleaf species ((89M1) in (99G1)).

The pre-white-man bison population of North American grasslands is estimated at 50 million. The demise of the bison populations during 1840-80 is well-documented. Bison were virtually eliminated before 1890. The weight of opinion is that bison did not graze as heavily as sheep and cattle in the North American grasslands (p. 742 of (56C1)). By 1885, all but a handful of buffalo had been killed, and the plains elk had disappeared completely (85R1).

[F9] - History of Grazing and Grazing Lands - Early US Livestock Populations -

(Historical Origins of Land Degradation) Settlement of the arid region of the US -- the lands west of the 100th meridian -- followed the political course set by the Homestead Act of 1862 and then concluded by the expanded homestead acts of 1904 (Kincaid Act), 1909 (Enlarged Homestead Act), and 1916 (Stock-Raising Homestead Act). Central to those acts, and to the massive depletion of western rangelands that followed their passage, were the size limitations placed on homestead units. Neither the 65 ha allowed under the 1862 Act nor the 259 ha permitted under the 1916 Act were adequate to support sustainable livestock operations in the arid region. Moreover, many of these arid lands were incapable of being homesteaded because of the absence of water. Although these findings were publicized by John Wesley Powell (1878) in his Report of the Lands of the Arid Region of the US, Congress held tenaciously to a vision of an agrarian West of small yeoman farmers. As a result, public policy set the preconditions for the tragedy of the western commons (00H2). (Continued Below)

Livestock were bought into the US Southwest in the 1700s and into the Northwest in the mid-1800s. By the early 1800s in the Southwest and the late 1800s in the Northwest, virtually all plant communities that supported grass- and sedge production (including ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests) were heavily stocked with cattle and sheep (97B2).

In 1870 the cattle population of the 17 western US states was 4-5 million. In 1884 it peaked at 35-40 million. Starvation reduced the population to 27 million in 1890 (91J1). Drought and cold, part of the western weather cycle, nearly wiped out the livestock industry in the northwest in 1886 and in the southwest in 1893. Cattle and sheep came back, but never in as great numbers (79F1).

The 1890 sheep population in the 17 western states was 53 million. The population peaked around 1910 (91J1).

In 1879 there were 14 million sheep and 5 million cattle grazing in the arid west (20" of rainfall or less). By 1889 the number of sheep increased 28%, and the number of cattle grew 60% (81S3).

From 1884-1900 the number of sheep in Wyoming and Montana increased from 260,000 to over 11 million (94O1).

Cattle numbers in Colorado, Wyoming and Montana west from zero in 1860 to 1.8 million in 1880 (94O1).

Maps of western US livestock distributions for 1850, 1860, 1870, 1900, 1910 and 1920 are in Ref. (91J1).

A good overview of the history of the BLM portion of the public domain is given in Ref. (75W2).

A good discussion of Arizona's over-grazing problems, water problems, including a historical perspective, is found in Ref. (83C1).

Southeast Arizona was grassland before 1880. Today, shrubby plants dominate. From 1880-1900 dramatic changes in composition of vegetation occurred along major waterways. Flooding and resulting channelization, plowing of floodplains, and livestock grazing essentially eliminated the natural process of shallow groundwater recharges. Changes in vegetation in upland range during 1930-80 were just as destructive (83C1).

In 1870 there were 5000 cows in all of the Arizona Territory. By 1890 there were 1,095,000 cows on Arizona ranch land. Photos in 1892-3 showed thousands of square miles denuded of their cover and laid bare to the elements (Ref. 38 of (81S3)).

The Great Plains once supported 200-250 cattle/mi². The Dust Bowl disaster prompted federal grazing regulations, leading to today's cattle densities of 50-100 head/mi² on the same ranges. Despite these regulations, as much as 28% of the 163 million acres of federal rangelands have been made almost useless by over-grazing, and in poor condition according to the CEQ (77B1).

In 1982 the number of AUMs allowed on public rangeland is 1/3 of that which occurred in 1935. Since 1935 sheep decreased significantly, while cattle have increased (83B1).

Texas longhorns in the early days of US grazing averaged about 650 lb. Typical cows of around 1900 weighed 800 lb. Today's beef cattle weigh about 1000 lb. (p. 163 of (91J1)).

Crested wheatgrass was deliberately introduced to the western US range despite its low palatability to livestock and low value to wildlife (94O1).

A massive amount of information on the condition of the western US range can be found in Ref. (36A1).

Public policy (Congress) insisted that public lands remain a commons through 1905 (on national forests) and through 1934 on the public domain, literally forcing ranchers to over-graze (94O1).

US range conditions by 1990 were not significantly different from 1966 - despite huge increases in USFS and BLM budgets for range improvements (PRIA and the Range Betterment Fund). This is partly explained by the 50% decrease in rancher-financed improvements during the time of massive increases in taxpayer-financed improvements (94O1).

During 1946-93, full-time BLM personnel grew from 1000 to almost 10,000 (94O1).

Most historic arroyos in southern Arizona were initiated during 1865-1900. No rainfall changes have occurred since then (74C1).

The first sheep were introduced in the Mezquital Valley (just north of the Valley of Mexico) in the 1530s and 1540s. By the late 1550s there were 400,000 of them. 15 years later there were 2 million. By the 1590s the sheep herds had been reduced by half. Hillsides were eroded; deep gullies formed, and the topsoil was carried away leaving only tepetate (Aztec word for exposed hardpan) (Joel Simon, Amicus Journal, Spring 1997, pp. 28-33).

• Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center: www.npwrc.usgs.gov
• Konza Prairie Long-tern Research Project: climate.konza.ksu.edu
• Ken Robertson's tallgrass prairie site: www.inhs.uluc.edu/~kenr/prairiewhatis.html
• Iowa Prairie Network: www.iowaprairienetwork.org
• Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie: www1.umn.edu/bellmuse/mnideals/prairie
• Prairies Forever: www.prairies.org
• Neal Smith Wildlife Refuge: www.tallgrass.org

A 9/99 USGS report ($1 million 1,000-page survey of America's biological resources) noted that California has eliminated 99% of its once-expansive grasslands.

From the 1940s through the 1960s, thousands of km² of public and private woodlands were cabled, chained, bulldozed, and treated with herbicides to convert them to grasslands (84W1), (83R1), (87D1), (87J1).

Ref. (96B2) presents arguments that refute the theory that climatic change and increasing CO₂ concentrations are responsible for expansion of western juniper.

Over the past century, western juniper has spread from rocky ridges and unproductive areas to occupy over 10,000 km² of eastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, and northeastern California (94M1). Similar to earlier expansion of pinyon-juniper in the southwest and Great Basin, this expansion is most likely due to livestock grazing and reduction of fire frequency (due to loss of fine fuel from grazing) (60E1), (81Y1), (94M1). Both phenomena occurred during the same time period (96B2).

Animal waste is responsible for 16% of common water quality problems traceable to household consumption. 2 billion tons of wet livestock manure is generated per year - over 10 times the amount of municipal solid waste generation. Beef cattle pose the greatest environmental hazard, with chickens 2nd and pigs 3^rd (99B3).

In the US, waste generated by livestock is 130 times that produced by humans, and is implicated in waterway pollution, toxic algal blooms and massive fish-kills. One 50,000-acre hog farm under construction in Utah will produce more waste than Los Angeles (98H2).

According to EPA, the world's livestock herds account for roughly 25% of anthropogenic emissions of methane - a potent greenhouse gas. Moreover, the stagnant waste lagoons of factory-farm operations emit an added 5% of human-induced methane, making livestock production the largest source of anthropogenic methane emissions (98H2).

SECTION (5-H) - Grain-Grass Substitution - [H1] Global, [H2] US, [H3] Outside US,

Data from a Worldwatch Press Briefing on Global Trends in Meat Consumption, 7/12/98

• 36% of the world's grain went (in 1997) to feed livestock and poultry.
• In the developing world, the share of grain fed to livestock has tripled since 1950 to 21% in 1997.
• In the industrial world nearly 70% of grain (produced) was fed to livestock in 1997.
• During 1960-97, the share of Chinese grain going to feed livestock increased from 8 to 26%.
• During 1960-97, the share of Mexican grain going to feed livestock increased from 5 to 45%.
• During 1960-97, the share of Egyptian grain going to feed livestock increased from 3 to 31%.
• During 1960-97, the share of Thailand grain going to feed livestock increased from 1 to 30%.

Some 25% of world cropland is devoted to producing grains and other feed for livestock (92D1).

About 38% of the world's grain production is now fed to livestock (92D1). In the US this amounts 135 million tons/ year of grain, of a total production of 312 million tons/ year (92D1).

In a world where 17% of people go hungry, the politics of meat consumption are increasingly heated, since meat production is an inefficient use of grain. The grain is used more efficiently when consumed directly by humans. Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, creating competition for grain between affluent meat-eaters and the world's poor (98H2).

Currently, 36% of the world's grain goes to feed livestock and poultry, inefficient converters of grain. (A small, but rapidly growing, share of the world's grain goes to fish farms, where the conversion is slightly more efficient than poultry.) In the developing world, the share of grain fed to livestock has tripled since 1950 to 21% in 1997 (98H2).

Industrial nations feed nearly 70% of grain to livestock (98H2).

Feedlots accounted for 12% of global beef and mutton production in 1996 ((97D1), p. 53). Comments: This percentage has probably increased significantly since 1996.

1/3-1/2 of the plant food grown on Earth that could be eaten by people is, instead, fed to livestock. Food cycled through livestock loses 80-90% of its food-value to humans, relative to direct consumption by humans (p. 366 of (91J1)).

About 1/3 of global grain consumption is for livestock feed (86V1).

Some 38% of the world's grain is fed to livestock (35% in 1960) (91D1).

In the US, 70% of domestic grain-use is by animals. 64% in eastern Europe, 57% in EC, 56% in Soviet Union, 55% in Brazil, 48% in Japan, 33% in the Middle East, 20% in China, 12% in Southeast Asia, 2% in sub-Saharan Africa and in India (91D1).

(Global) If the 670 million tons of the world's grain used for livestock feed were reduced by 10%, this would free up 67 million tons of grain, enough to sustain 225 million people - nearly 3 years of global population growth (98H2).

33% of cattle added to US feedlots in October/99 weighed less than 600 lbs versus 27% in 1998 and 28% in 1997 (99B2) (USDA data).

Using pasture and grazed forest-range for a system of producing livestock by feeding grass alone reduces energy inputs by about 60% and land resources by about 8%, but reduces the production of animal protein in the US by about 50% (80P1). Under a system in which only grass is fed, livestock would be restricted to beef-, milk- and lamb production. The amount of grain fed to US livestock is about 135 million tonnes/ year, or about 10 times the amount consumed by the US population (80P1).

*# Corn and sorghum silage for beef- and dairy cattle is grown on an additional 40,000 km².

Average protein yield of the 5 major grains (+ soybeans) fed to US livestock: 46 tonnes/ km² (80P1). (See table above.)

(USA) 37 million tonnes of plant protein is fed to livestock annually to produce 5.4 million tonnes of animal protein for human consumption. This plant-protein source is composed of 14.8 million tonnes from grain, 20.2 million tonnes from forage and about 2 million tones from miscellaneous plant- and animal by-products (80P1). To humans, animal-protein has about 1.4 times the biological value of grain-protein (Ref. 18 of (80P1)).

(USA) Animal products supply about 69% of the protein available for consumption in the US, 33% of the energy, and substantial amounts of other nutrients, notably calcium, available iron, riboflavin, niacin, and vitamins B6 and B12 (Ref. 3 of (80P1)). Animal products account for 37% of iron available for US consumption (Ref. 3 of (80P1)). Animal sources of iron are generally at least twice as available as plant sources, and, in reality, animal products probably provide more than 70% of the available iron in the US diet (80P1).

The share of grain fed to livestock in Egypt rose from 10-36% over the past 25 years (Ref. 72 of (91D1)).

Mexico sorghum (livestock feed) increased from 2% to 16% of grain land during 1965-85, as corn (human food) area fell from 83% to 69% of grain land (Ref. 73 of (91D1)).

Mexico feeds 30% of its grain to livestock, although 22% of Mexicans suffer from mal-nutrition (Ref. 73 of (91D1)).

The share of Mexican cropland devoted to animal feed and fodder was 5% in 1960; 23% in 1980 (91D1).

Syria devoted 3000 km² in 1950 to barley for livestock feed, and 30,000 km² in 1989. Most of this expansion was onto dry steppes, ecologically suited only for grazing. (Syria exported barley in 1965. Today it imports barley (Ref. 69 of (91D1)).