Livestock Grazing Impacts on Public Lands: A Viewpoint

Abstract

In recent years, livestock grazing on public lands has been a subject of considerable controversey. Groups advocating or opposing grazing on public lands have often based their arguments on emotion rather than fact. A discussion of grazing impacts on public lands based on available literature is overdue. It is my intent to emphasize the benefits of controlled livestock grazing to vegetation, water, wildlife and economic resources. It is recognized that uncontrolled livestock grazing leads to resource destruction. However, this also applies to mining, logging, farming, wildlife grazing, recreation, and practically any other land use when unregulated. Demand and Production The demand for red meat is rapidly rising both in the United States and abroad (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology 1974). It is expected the world's population will increase 63% in the next 25 years (Bommer 1978). Several million acres of grassland are converted to cropland every year in the United States alone (Long 1974). Presently, consumption of red meat per capita in this country and overseas is also rapidly increasing (Bommer 1978). This three-way crunch suggests that demand will dictate that we drastically increase red meat production from federal lands rather than eliminate this area from our grazing resources. The argument that livestock on public lands presently account for only a small part of total meat production is not true. Public rangelands provide about 12% of the forage consumed annually by domestic livestock (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology 1974). However, it was also reported that this information underestimates the importance of federal land because of the following: 1) The annual feeding cycle requires use of forage from federal rangeland, private rangeland and cropland. 2) Published statistics usually combine beef and dairy and do not distinguish betwen grazing and feedlot operations. 3) Values for specific products such as feeder calves and yearlings or sheep and lambs are not separated. Therefore, federal lands are much more important than the available data indicate. Red meat can be produced much more efficiently on rangeland than on cropland. This is because energy inputs in the form of

Impacts of grazing systems on soil compaction and pasture production in Alberta

“…These results agree with other studies (e.g., Holechek 1980;Heitschmidt et al 1987) showing that SDG reduced the accumulation of standing dead vegetation and fallen litter. Our study indicated that greater litter was removed by trampling or consumption under SDG than CG.…”

Climate change and prairie pothole wetlands: mitigating water-level and hydroperiod effects through upland management

“…Uncontrolled grazing can have a negative effect on a watershed but can be managed with control of the timing, frequency, and intensity of grazing (Holecheck, 1981). The literature on the impacts of grazing on hydrology is scattered with little information on its effects on prairie pothole wetlands.…”

Final environmental impact statement for riparian and aquatic habitat management in the Albuquerque Field Office, New Mexico /

“…Most "pro-environment" reviews and position papers (Armour et al 1994) stress that livestock grazing is acceptable providing that it is managed in a way that is compatible with ecological requirements of healthy riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Similarly, most "pro-grazing" reviews and position papers (e.g., Holechek 1981) agree that grazing needs to be controlled by use of scientific principles. Fencing and complete exclusion of grazing from riparian areas are often identified as the only strategies capable of rehabilitating damaged streamside areas.…”