Cattle, Sheep, Trout Streams, Nat. Forests

FAOL Community Fly Anglers Online
1

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?

2

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

3

Thanks Doug!

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

4

“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.

5

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

6

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

7

I agree the effects of overgrazing riparian areas are terrible and should be halted at once. However their are some good points to be held for the limited use of these public lands for seasonal grazing.
The first positive point which comes to mind is the development of roads and or access points along the stream. This could be a combination of physical and or monetary gains provided by the livestock. Then the order of nature itself come to mind. If all livestock were to be removed where would bugs get there food and shelter. Are there enough users of the stream ready to provide all the funds to manage roads,invasive plants,possible invasive livestock or predatory animals?

Might it be that proactive management of the grazing land would better serve the needs of all the people and animals involved. I would suggest the use of watering stations built away from the stream in well suited locations for a start . After the positive effects of this possible riparian fencing could be introduced.

In my experience people are better managed if given some sort of choice along with guidance.

8

Very well spoken cowboyjohn and no, ppl don’t like to be summarily regulated. I agree that fencing would be a better way. I can’t bring myself to eat the smallies in a local drainage when I see cattle standing in the river.

I’ve seen the results of the fencing in other states and it seems to work. Just wish all states would line up their thinking and come into the 21st century.

MontanaMoose

9

I have not had the opportunity to fish any of the waters discussed but I must agree that stream and river degradation is a direct result of livestock entering and defecating in the water. Excess silting, the introduction of bacteria and nutrients, lowering of water quality and general destruction of the streambed and surrounding lands are all symptoms of livestock allowed in the water.
One of the best groups that work with local farmers and residents is the Grand River Conservation Authority in Southern Ontario, Canada. They govern the Grand River which flows 300 kilometers from source to Lake Erie and all of its tributaries and water sources. They have been working with local farmers and providing grants to improve water quality. One of the best methods is to provide fencing away from the water. This not only improves the water quality and associated benefits (improved underwater life, both insect & fish) but it can also provide an access route for the angler without disturbing the local livestock.
This has providing some excellent fishing opportunities for Brown & Rainbow trout and smallmouth bass not only as a result of the above but also through special regulations on some of the waters.
All of this in one of the most heavily populated areas in the country.

http://www.grandriver.ca/index.cfm

Check out the resource management topics i e rural water quality and the examples of what can be done.

10

(I know I’ve been watching Johnny Depp movies again) - but it really is off-putting to be fishing a stream, wade/walk upstream to find a large, bloated dead COW in the water. If you made the mistake of getting a little drink of that cold water downstream you probably also have a nice case of guardia too. Lots of fall-out from livestock and trout water.

11

There are many things that can wreck a small river or stream, but cattle along the banks is a BIG one. In fragile areas, fencing the stream, with side channels cut to water stock makes a lot of sense to me. Here’s an area where sportsman’s groups and stock-owners could partner together to save the stream. Take a look at the photo, and notice the bank degredation. This precious little river is being slowly filled with silt, due in great part to cattle, and it would be very easy to fix.
http://s105.photobucket.com/albums/m220/2boomers/?action=view&current=cutthroat-1.jpg

12

Most of you seem to opine that the cattle are bad for the trout & I agree. I can take you to a small creek in the Warner Mountains where you can fish for about 1/4 of a mile and get one or two fish, then cross a fence and in the next 100 yards catch 15 or 20. Cattle have been excluded from the good fishing area and the brookies lie under the cut banks waiting for a morsel to pass by.

Another item of consideration is the safety factor. Out west cattle roam free on open range and are more than frequently found ambling down the middle of a paved road. I read of people getting in wrecks and sometimes injured or killed with collisions with cattle but until some nabob gets killed or hurt I doubt much will change.

Tim

13

I think that, if managed properly, cattle are an exceptable part of an ecosystem…
You can’t paint all open range cattle operations with the same brush.

http://www.cowsandfish.org/

I believe that allowing low density-grazing when the ground is dry of frozen is fine for a stream system.
Of course riparian pastures need to be fenced off so you can manage them, and off-stream watering systems set up.

I think people need to slow down when driving in open range country… just as liable to hit a deer or small fuzzy animal than a cow.

14

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.

15

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

Tim

16

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.

17

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

18

I’m no expert on cattle or land management but one of the places that I have fished on BLM land there are cattle, but there doesn’t seem to be any over grazed areas, the stream runs clear, the fish are willing, and the only paths by the stream I see are made by moose and elk. I rarely see cattle at the water’s edge or all that close to the stream. They are usually up the hillside more. I am guessing that if done right, one is not mutually exclusive of the other, that is, cattle= bad fishing or good fishing=no cattle. Is this an issue about overgrazing or all grazing use? As far as cowpies goes, I see just as much bison pies in Yellowstone as anything I saw on the BLM land that I’ve fished. This is just my limited observation and uninformed opinion and I may be totally off base.

Glenn

19

I agree with John and Ranchwife on free ranging cattle and good practices policy. It can truly be a win/win situation if a little effort is taken. I didn’t do a very good job of making a point earlier, that I’d like to make. I use as an example, the Teton River in Teton Basin, near Driggs, Idaho. Nearly all of this stream runs through private farms and ranches. However the river it’s self doesn’t belong to these private entities. It belongs to the public. This departs from the original post, in that the concern doesn’t include public lands. What concerns me, is the feeling by some landowners, that they don’t have to do anything in the way of protecting or mitigating damage done to public waters, by cattle that are penned on private property. I don’t know if they are legally liable for damage done to streams and streambeds. I suspect not, or someone would have taken them to task by now. I’d really like to see some legislation protecting the banks of public streams from this sort of damage.
In the not too distant past, a developer was arrested for using a bulldozer on the banks of one of the streams in this same valley, that changed a relatively small area. I’m not sure just how much damage was done to the stream, but I do know that the developer got whacked pretty good for his illegal activity. In my opinion, he hasn’t done any more damage than the cattle owners are doing, and they should be held just as accountable. Rant over. Take a rest.

20

I agree with this. I’ve talked to fisheries people that believe rotational/seasonal grazing helps maintain the ‘grassland’ character of restored streams by keeping down the invasive trees. And I’ve fished plenty of state easements with cattle grazing on them that aren’t hurting the stream. I think it’s just when too many cattle are around that the stream gets damaged. If the number is within the reasonable capacity of the land, then it doesn’t seem to be a problem.

I also like it because the grass ends up being more like knee high than shoulder high, so my backcast doesn’t have to be quite so ‘Upeth’! And some people seem to be scared of cattle, so they don’t fish those areas.