Well, I’m neither cattle rancher nor sheep herder so my comments are more conjecture than anything else but it appears to me that the only good that can come of cattle and sheep grazing close to trout streams is fat and happy cattle and sheep.
MontanaMoose
I am a fish habitat biologist, and I think there can be a benefit to proper grazing in the riparian area (I work on the east slopes from alpine areas down to the prairies… trout to pike and walleye).
Over much of the plains/foothills up to the mountains, fires and bison were major drivers of how the landscape looked. We’ve managed to eliminate those factors. Proper grazing techniqes (including timing and density pressure controls) can open up closed in streams to sunlight and provide a bit of nutrient to nutrient poor systems. This improves bug growth.
Yes hoof danage to banks can be a problem, but it can be controled by having grassed banks and grazing them in the winter. Riparian pastures can also support low densities of grazing at times. This often promotes new growth and thicker low level vegetation and root systems.
In grasslend systems, yes grazing keeps the thatch down and promotes new grass growth… just like bison would have done, or like the effects the occasional fire would have resulted in.
All grazing is not bad.
(I’d rather have cattle than have a logging company going in and wipping out a slope of trees, changing the whole hydrology of the stream.)
Sometimes it is okay, i.e. Timber Coulee in the Driftless Area of Wisconsin
Somtimes it is bad, i.e. the West Fork of the Kickapoo River in the Driftless Area of Wisconsin and Tyler Creek in SW Michigan (allegedly)
What is the difference? DENSITY There is a huge difference between a stream with small family farms nearby and streams that have CAFOs nearby. Only so much manure can be handled within a given watershed.
Well put pharper and Jim Flamming. The experiment thet comes to mind is the Hat Creek fencing of years gone by. Now and for a long time the cattle are no where to be found anywhere near that stream that I’ve noticed in say the past 8 or 10 years and maybe it’s been like that for a lot longer. I typically fish Carbon Bridge or The Weir, both sides. The grass is tall at both and yes, thy backcast can become a hideous tangled mess but once more and with me anyway, it’s the [b]image[/b] of places where the bank is stomped to powder and there are flies and flop everywhere, not to mention herefords in the stream/river having their drink and then…well, you know the rest. I just don’t like it. I do respect all the opinions, pros and cons etc. I just don’t think the good of it could possibly outweigh the bad…as I perceive it at least. I do agree that there is responsible stream side grazing and The Fall River comes to mind. There may be even more ranchers fencing now that ever. What I’ve noticed in the past is that they confine the cattle’s access to a small area for purposes of watering and that area is fenced on out into the river leaving both sides of the ‘cattle gate’ more natural than it would be otherwise.
I’ll stop now !
MontanaMoose
I haven’t been on the Deschutes for some time but they fenced it off much as Montana describes and it seemed to make a big difference.
I enjoy the myopic view of ANY issue.
Why does it seem that everyone assumes that keeping the streams ‘as is’ is a good thing? Isn’t there a reasonable argument that cattle for food more important than fish for amusement?
The ranchers who raised them will get income from the sales of the cows. This money will be spent, helping drive the economy. At each step, from leaving the ranchers control until they reside in the bellies of satisfied diners, the turnover from these ‘cows’ will provide income for other jobs, keeping the economic cycle strong.
Change occurs. The ‘environment’ is constantly evolving. We are a part of it, not just observers. Those streams are radically different today from what they were 200 years ago, and will be just as different in another couple of hundred years.
The fish that can adapt will survive the cows, as they did with the bison and whatever came before.
In the meantime, we get to eat. I’ll deal with some cow pies and muddy banks on a few streams I never fish anyway.
(the above ‘oposing view’ was brought to you as a public service of the apathy and disallusionment asssociation of fly fishermen-the worlds largest group of unminded individual fly fishermen)
Buddy 
It wasn’t until Pharper’s post that I saw any hint of what I was hoping to see. (My apologies if I missed it in another post.)
While over-grazing and bank damage are bad, large fires are too. By grazing up the grass, cattle and sheep can remove much, or even most, of the tinder in an area that can lead to fires.
There is also a very minor point that I’ll mention in passing. By grazing seedling trees and shrubs, sheep and cattle help to maintain open areas. While shade around the stream helps to keep it cool, open pastures are likely to provide a higher density of grasshoppers for the trout in nearby streams.
Take care,
Ed
For some interesting observations on the subject of cattle grazing on the public lands of the west, follow the link. I say observations, because I don’t know the author and his credentials and evidence, and am not familiar with the organization represented.
I personally believe the authors “truths” are closer to the truth than the “myths” he discusses - because they are consistent with other publications I’ve run across over time and with what I have seen over most of my lifetime, most of which has been spent in the west and all of which has been connected to the west.
John
( The above “opposing view” was brought to you as a public service, with no apologies. )
John Scott–Your suggested website is VERY interesting and relevant to my question that started this thread. Many thanks.
I congratulate your state on TRULY welcoming the idea of “diversity”. The land should be used and shared equally.
It’s funny how states that claim the word “diversity” have more land closures than land openings…