Prairie has its value

A forum dedicated to conservation issues and listings of conservation Orgs

Moderators: NV Guide, Dogman

Prairie has its value

Postby h2ofwlr » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:15 am

MATTERS AT HAND: North Dakotans should realize that prairie has its own value 11/28/05

By Mike Jacobs
Publisher and Editor of the Grand Forks Herald

Among the issues facing North Dakota, perhaps the most difficult is the future of the land itself. North Dakota is a prairie state, but there is little prairie left, and the fate of what there is, is very much in doubt.

It shouldn't be that way. Saving prairie should be a priority for North Dakotans. Of all North American land forms, few are so threatened as prairie. None have fewer friends.

This appears to be changing, but advocates for prairie face opposition at every turn.

Added evidence of this appeared last week, when ranchers who use the Sheyenne National Grasslands objected to a plan to reduce grazing in order to combat invasive weeds. Reducing grazing would affect their livelihoods, the ranchers argued, and they should have priority over the land itself.

This is a difficult argument for us North Dakotans. Many of us remain tied to the land, and most of us who don't take our living directly from agriculture remember when we did, only a generation or two ago.

In North Dakota, land is to be used, we learned. Land that doesn't produce a crop is wasted.

Of course, that attitude is mistaken. Prairie is an incredibly complex ecosystem sustaining a wide variety of plant and animal species. Sadly, there are fewer of these than ever before in North Dakota. Even the meadowlark, the state bird, has been reduced in population. Even the prairie rose, the state flower, has become difficult to find.

Reduced, but not eliminated. Difficult but not impossible.

There is still time to save some of North Dakota's prairie but it's going to take a change in the state's consensus. Instead of seeing land solely as a source of income, we need to see its intrinsic value as the foundation for abundant life.

The national grasslands are owned by the public, which acquired them in the 1930s, when agriculture largely failed. The government stepped in to save the lands and the farmers; the deal it made was that ranchers would have access to the lands but that they would be available for others, as well. For many years the U.S. Forest Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has administered these lands. The Forest Service refers to its lands as "lands of many uses."

For generations, however, two uses have predominated. One is grazing, which is the major use of the Sheyenne National Grasslands. The other is oil, which occurs in the Little Missouri National Grasslands in the southwestern part of the state.

Pressure for oil development has only increased with the escalating demand for petroleum products. The pressure for grazing is subtler, however, and isn't based on economic demand at all. Beef is not in short supply, and demand may be shrinking.

Instead, the ranching industry turns to nostalgia, arguing that it ought to have access to the grasslands in order to preserve a unique lifestyle. This is an appealing argument, but it ultimately fails. Ranching in the national grasslands continues as a result of government subsidies. These aren't direct, but grasslands leaseholders benefit from extremely favorable terms. Without them, their operations wouldn't be viable and, like many thousands of their colleagues outside the grassland areas, they'd be out of business. The government didn't act to save family farmers operating on privately owned land; it need not act to save those operating on public lands.

There's one more reason to favor the prairie. It has value of its own. People will travel to see prairie, especially since it has become so very rare. Prairie offers living space for a diversity of species, each of them valuable by itself, and valuable to humans, too. Prairie offers a glimpse of an ecosystem functioning naturally, and humans find solace and inspiration in that. Prairie offers a glimpse of the Great Plains as they were when humans first came here: vast, open, apparently unending. These are among the "many uses" that prairie ought to have in North Dakota.

That will take a change of attitude.
The Audacity of Bull Crap.
"Typical: Gun-loving, bitter bible-thumping white person" Barack Obama.
Hey I resemble that comment!!! Those are FIGHTING WORDS!!!
User avatar
h2ofwlr
Forum & State Moderator
 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:58 am
Location: "Buzz" at 8 months . Land of 10K polluted lakes


Postby h2ofwlr » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:17 am

The Fargo (ND) Forum engages the issue.

Forum Editorial: No sacred cowboys on grasslands
The Forum
Published Tuesday, November 29, 2005

The Sheyenne National Grasslands are an often overlooked treasure in southeastern North Dakota. The 70,000-acre grasslands, the largest remnant of tall-grass prairie in public ownership, harbor rare prairie orchids and prairie chickens. They also offer great hiking and camping opportunities. But they’re in dire trouble, infested with leafy spurge, a noxious weed, and Kentucky bluegrass, also an invasive plant species.

The U.S. Forest Service has grappled with how to devise a better plan to manage the grasslands for nine years. During that time, the infestations have only gotten worse. Leafy spurge now infiltrates more than a third of the Sheyenne National Grasslands, with infestations as high as 58 percent in one area. The spread has continued despite aggressive efforts at containment, a battle costing $200,000 a year in recent years, involving beetles, herbicide spraying and goats.

Three years ago, the Forest Service was able to implement its plan for managing the grasslands in all key areas except one: grazing. Select groups of ranchers permitted to graze cattle on the grasslands and their supporters in Congress have tied up the planning in knots. It’s time to rein them in.

The grasslands belong to the public, not to the 73 ranchers and farmers who have permits to graze up to 10,500 head on the Sheyenne National Grasslands. Those farms and ranches get a hefty subsidy for grazing cattle on the land – one-fifteenth of the market rate for renting pastureland, by one estimate. Grazing cattle on the grasslands is a privilege, controlled by a permit process, not a right.

Forest Service officials are careful to emphasize that reducing cattle numbers isn’t the panacea to restoring the land. Grasslands are complex ecosystems, which require intricate management. Rotation grazing, moving cattle on subdivided pastures to allow sections to rest, is one of a variety of methods to improve the health of the grass. A variety of steps will be needed. But let’s not take one of the key variables off the table: the number of cows allowed to munch on parcels of public land.

We understand that one of the roles of the grasslands is to provide for the economic well-being of the area. Ranching always has been and will remain an important part of the grasslands. But ranchers permitted to graze cattle on public lands must be willing to accept some restrictions – including a reduction in cattle numbers, if deemed necessary – to protect an important and threatened natural resource.

We’re disappointed that ranchers appear to object even to the idea of testing herd reductions as proposed under a draft demonstration project. We share the concern of environmental watchdogs that the morphing of “standards” into “guidelines” in the pilot project proposal is a worrisome sign that the Forest Service is prepared to bend to the demands of an influential special interest group.

Leafy spurge doesn’t infest a healthy grassland. It’s an opportunistic invader that takes root when a pasture is under stress. The Sheyenne Grasslands’ sandy soil poses an added challenge in maintaining good range health. The unhealthy combination of too many cows grazing on too small an area clearly seems to be one of the problems. An effective restoration plan will deal with that problem. Enlightened ranchers who understand that a healthy prairie yields a more productive range will not stand in the way of a solution.
The Audacity of Bull Crap.
"Typical: Gun-loving, bitter bible-thumping white person" Barack Obama.
Hey I resemble that comment!!! Those are FIGHTING WORDS!!!
User avatar
h2ofwlr
Forum & State Moderator
 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:58 am
Location: "Buzz" at 8 months . Land of 10K polluted lakes


Return to Conservation/Biology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests