Cattle, Sheep, Trout Streams, Nat. Forests

[HCR]

The motto of the Rio grande Nat. Forest (where I fish a lot) is "Land of many uses."

These uses include grazing of cattle and sheep in the summer months. The animals not only eat the grass, but erode the land by creating trails along the streams. When the cattle, especially, wear a trail down to a level of 10 inches or so, they make a new, parallel trail. I consider these effects from their presence to be negative.

On the other hand, the animals drop a lot of cow pies (don't know what the polite term is for sheep feces), that eventually, I imagine, end up in the streams holding trout, making the streams more fertile, just as streams flowing below town sewage plants are more fertile than the waters above the sewage plants.

My question is: What is your opinion of the relative benefit/harm that the cattle and sheep do to the trout?

[DShock]

HCR,
Here is a Ohio Article on the subject; http://ohioline.osu.edu/ls-fact/0002.html
Doug

[HCR]

Thanks Doug!

That article has a lot to wade (pardon the pun) through and I will.

[ducksterman]

"My question is: What is your opinion of the relative benefit/harm that the cattle and sheep do to the trout?"

My simple answer...Harmful.

Since you said relative benefit I 'd be interested in hearing of benefits.

and I didn't wade through Doug's link....not that it's not appreciated.

[Gardenfish]

completely and totally harmful. No excuses for it. It needs to stop yesterday.

[J Castwell]

"Relative benefits?",,, anything that makes the weeds/grass grow helps slow down the stream. That is not a good thing.

[JohnScott]

This is a HUGE question with about as many answers as there are specific habitats spread out around the country, and, obviously, in Canada, and other places. The original post here had to do with National Forests in the West, so I will confine myself to that question ( to include public lands managed by the BLM ).

Kind of reminds me of some Sierra Club meetings I went to where the subject of getting all cattle off all public lands as soon as possible came up and most S.C. people were vehemently opposed to any opposition to their point of view. Coming from a cattle ranching family ( way back when ) and being aware of cattle on public lands from an early age and a Western Heritage and lifestyle revolving around cattle on public lands, I guess it was natural for me to look for compromises.

I don't think it is appropriate for us, as fly fishermen or other outdoor recreationists, to try to disenfranchise people from their family history and traditions, UP TO A CERTAIN POINT.

The point that I made at the Sierra Club meetings, and a point that was at least listened to with some serious attention, even by the most vehement folks ( and it is not just my point but one that has been around for some time ) is that we have to respect those whose past is grounded in those traditions and whose future depends on the continuation of that lifestyle. That is, the "old timers" and those soon to join that group.

But there could be a cutoff point - those who are young enough to move to some other way of earning a living and adapting to a new lifestyle could be told that what their family had and has, i.e. permits to graze cattle on the public lands of the west, would not be available to them when the old timers in their families passed. It would be their choice, UP TO A CERTAIN POINT, to stay in that tradition and lifestyle, but they would do so with an expectation that it could end any day, with the passing of a generation, by the revocation of grazing permits.

Also, those who simply use the public lands to graze cattle as an investment or tax shelter could be given a reasonable amount of time to "rearrange" their investment portfolio before their grazing permits were revoked in perpetuity. If they wanted to and could afford to "cowboy" on their privately owned or leased lands, fine. As long as they took reasonable measures to protect the publicly owned waters from despoilation by their herds.

I haven't followed this subject closely for a number of years, and admittedly am not aware of any current initiatives one way or the other. Also, recognizing that this is one of those subjects that can get political in a big hurry, without anyone even trying to make it political ( and noting that Ladyfisher already tacitly approved the thread by joining the conversation ), the subject of privatization of the public lands and / or states claiming rights to them is a very difficult and complex one - although the law is well established and is almost certainly constutional. Initiatives in those areas could have a dramatic impact on the question that is the subject of this thread - lots less public land and lots more cattle.

John

P.S. The subject of grazing permits is another very controversial one among real stakeholders in that discussion. Permits do generate funds that benefit us as tax payers. Whether the cost of the permits is reasonable is one that has been debated for years.

Personally, considering how little beef is actually raised on the public lands and / or how little need there really is for that beef, I would prefer all grazing permits to be revoked as soon as possible, with due consideraton to the old timers and their dependents, not their descendants.

[Panman]

I believe John Scott has echoed my sentiments on this subject.

Tim

[ranchwife]

This is a topic that has been hotly debated between the cattle industry and other groups. I would like to state that there are good grazing practices that can actually benefit the riparian areas and the streams, and there are bad practices that hurt the riparian areas and the creeks themselves, and the cattle herd grazing on them. The permits that benefit the creeks/riparian areas take into consideration the stream flows, vegetation growth, alternate watering sources, the substrate of the creek/riparian area, the slope/aspect of the area, and so on, to determine the number of head on the allotment, the time of year they are on the allotment, and the length of time on the allotment. These good grazing systems have cattle owners that know about the land and streams and strive to keep them in optimal working order, and have USFS/BLM range cons that are constantly managing the area and working with the permittee to make the grazing arrangements good for the land, and for the cattle themselves. The bad grazing systems often have permittees that move the cows onto the permitted land and do nothing to monitor where the cows are, how much vegetation there is, stream conditions, etc. If a stream is left in a poor condition, there's also most likely a USFS/BLM range con not doing their job. If they were doing their job, the cows would be sent home or made to be moved to another part of the allotment.

For those of us in the cattle industry, who strive to make sure the land isn't burdened by our cattle management practices, it is a constant source of frustration and shame to see other cattle owners caring so little for the land, and ultimately their herd. It is sheer ignorance, laziness, and stupidity on their part to hurt the land, and their herds.

[JohnScott]

ranchwife -

It's good to hear your side as a responsible member of the cattle ranching industry. I had you in mind when I posted earlier, and hoped you would join the discussion so another point of view would be heard. Nicely done !!

Having said that, as an outdoor recreationist beyond fly fishing, I would personally prefer that cattle not be run on public lands, especially where recreational uses by an ever growing segment of the general population take place.

Having said that, I will agree with you that responsible management of the lands and good ranching practices can improve some of the lands, including riparian areas, where grazing is now permitted.

Kind of reminds me of some of the discussions on the BB about the few people who are not respectful of private property rights and access limitations who ruin it for so many who do respect and take care for the land.

Thanks.

John