Targeted Livestock Grazing Won’t Preclude Large Wildfires
Senators Steve Daines of Montana and Diane Feinstein of California have once again introduced legislation, the “Emergency Wildfire and Public Safety Act of 2020” that is based upon misguided assumptions that fuel reductions will preclude the large blazes occurring as the West.
Never mind that climate change is the driving force in all these fires as was recently documented in a paper (Jones et al 2020). Though the bulk of the legislation is aimed at increasing the logging of our public lands, there is also a provision for targeted livestock grazing as a panacea for wildfire.
The legislation will reduce the public review process of these logging and grazing proposals through the use of categorical exclusions. Categorical exclusions permit agencies to bypass most environmental analysis and public scrutiny.
COLLATERAL DAMAGE OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING
The basic idea behind targeted grazing is that livestock will consume grass and other vegetation and thereby reduce the spread of wildfire. There is some rationale to the idea—less fuel under “normal” fire weather conditions can influence fire behavior.
However, almost all large fires—the fires that this legislation is designed to halt–occurs during extreme fire weather conditions (Keyser A. and Westerling, A, 2017). These conditions which include drought, low humidity, high temperatures and high winds overrides the normal influence of fuels.
Furthermore, grazing to the degree where fuels are significantly reduced has collateral damage that is frequently ignored.
There are many studies that document that grazing exclusion leads to ecosystem recovery and health (Dobkin, D.S., A. C. Rich, and W. H. Pyle, 1998; Beschta, R.L., D. L. Donahue, A. DellaSala et al., 2012; Cheng, J. et al. 2011).
A recent meta-analysis found livestock was a major factor in global biodiversity losses (Filazzola, A. et al. 2020).
The idea that heavy grazing can improve ecosystems has been disputed by many studies (Carter, J. et al., 2014)
Severe grazing imposes multiple ecological impacts on the landscape (Fleischner 1992; Wuerthner and Matteson 2002; Wilcove 1998; Freilich et al 2003; Flather, C.H. L.A. Joyce and C.A. Bloomgarden, 1994).
Grazing to the point where fuel reductions will be effective in slowing or halting fires requires cropping vegetation to the level of a manicured golf course.
In achieving such fuel reductions, hiding cover for small mammals, reptiles, and birds is reduced. Forage and pollen for insects is removed. Forage that would otherwise feed native herbivores from ground squirrels to elk is removed. Soils are compacted. Weeds are spread (Belsky, A.J., and J. L. Gelbard, 2000)
The banks along streams are broken down (Kauffman B. and W. C. Krueger. 1984, Belsky, J.A., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman, 1999). Biocrusts (which cover the soil between bunchgrasses and reduces erosion) are destroyed. Water is polluted by livestock feces (Wuerthner and Matteson 2002).
The mere presence of domestic livestock can socially displace native ungulates like elk and deer (Steward, K. 2002, Clegg, Kenneth. 1994).
A further impact of livestock production in the arid West is the consumption of water for irrigation and its impacts on aquatic ecosystems. Irrigated agriculture for livestock forage production is the biggest consumer of water in California as well as much of the West (Reisner, Mark, and Sarah Bates. 1990; Hanson, Brian. 2020). The consumption of water for irrigated forage production is a major factor in the decline of native fish around the West (Minchkley, W.L., and J.E. Deacon. 1991; Richter, B.D. et al., 2020).
Trampling by livestock negatively impacts native mollusks (Freist, Terrence.J. 2002, Denmead, Lisa H., et al., 2015}.
Livestock grazing is also responsible for the killing of native predators (Treves, A. et al., 2019)
Heavy livestock grazing can compact soils (Warren, S.D. et al., 1986) and negatively influence soil carbon stores (Belsky, Joy, and Dana M. Blumenthal. 1997; Bird, S.B. et al. 2002; Fang Fei, Chang Rui-ying, Tang Hai-ping, 2014; Dingpeng Xionga, Peili Shia, Xianzhou Zhanga, Chris B. Zou. 2016; Ingram L.J. et al., 2008). Grazing contributes to soil carbon losses (Klumpp, K., Fontaine, S., Attard, E., Le Roux, X., Gleixner, G. and Soussana, J.-F., 2009; McSherry, M., and Mark Richie. 2013.).
It is worth noting that much of the terrain under public lands management never had significant grazing pressure from large herbivores like bison (Mack and Thompson 1982, Bailey, James A., 2016) and are often harmed by heavy grazing. For instance, it can take a native grass like bluebunch wheatgrass up to 10 years to recover fully from severe grazing pressure (Anderson, L. 1991).
Despite claims by Allan Savory and others that livestock grazing can reduce greenhouse emissions and sequester carbon (Savory, A., 2013), most researchers conclude that domestic livestock emissions are one of the major factors driving climate change (Myers, Bruce, 2014) which is creating the extreme fire weather conditions driving wildfires.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization concluded that livestock contributed to 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions (FAO, Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental Issues and Options (Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006), while other studies put livestock contribution to global GHG emissions even higher (Goodland, R Anhang, J, 2009: Ripple, W. et al., 2014). Advocating livestock grazing to preclude wildfires is counterproductive in the long run since it only exacerbates the climatic conditions that favors large fires.
These are only a few of the ecological impacts that result from the severe grazing necessary to significantly alter fire behavior. And we will see later, even this kind of severe grazing usually will not stop a wind-driven fire occurring during extreme fire weather.
LIVESTOCK CONTRIBUTION TO CHEATGRASS SPREAD
Alternatively, and far more critical these days, livestock grazing is one of the major factors in the spread of cheatgrass, an annual exotic, that is extremely flammable (Williamson, Matt. A. et al. 2019, Belsky, A.J. and J. L. Gelbard, 2000).
Therefore, cheatgrass has increased fire frequency in sagebrush ecosystems, causing complete type conversion of sagebrush steppe in many areas (Reisner, Michael D. et al. 2013, Condon Lea and David Pyke. 2018).
The factors that favor cheatgrass spread, including livestock grazing (Bradley BA, Curtis CA, Fusco EJ, Abatzoglou JT, Balch JK, Dadashi S, Tuanmu M-N. 2017). Selective grazing of preferred perennial grasses reduces their competitive abilities, permitting cheatgrass colonization. Besides, biological soil crusts (BSC) found in the interspaces between bunchgrasses inhibits cheatgrass establishment. Cattle trample these BSC (Root, Miller, and Rosentreter.2019).
Maintaining healthy stands of perennial grasses has been shown to inhibit cheatgrass spread (Strand et al. 2017).
Although grazing is often trumpeted as a means of reducing fuels (Bailey, Derek W., et al. 2019) and thus wildfire, especially by “targeted” grazing and fuel reductions. (Diamond, Joel, Christopher A. Call, and Nora Devoe 2009). The claims must be scrutinized closely.
For instance, a study done in Arizona concluded (with modeling) that light utilization (26%) in treated sites, the BehavePlus fire model predicted that herding and supplement reduced fire rate of spread by more than 60% in grass communities and by more than 50% in grass/shrub communities (R.A. Bruegger et al. 2016).
However, the authors go one to conclude: “Although it is a promising tool for altering fire behavior, targeted grazing will be most effective in grass communities under moderate weather conditions.” The weather factors are significant because nearly all massive wildfires burn under “extreme fire weather conditions.” Under such conditions, targeted grazing, as well as fuel breaks, fail to contain or stop fires (Bruegger et al., 2016)
Another study that looked at fuel breaks created by targeted grazing and other measures like bulldozing native vegetation cautioned that the “cure might be worse than the disease” since the destruction of soil biological crusts and loss of native grasses that occur with targeted grazing, bulldozing. Other fuel reductions create the disturbance habitat that favors the spread of cheatgrass (Shinneman et al 2018).
The authors cautioned: “these projects could also add thousands of kilometers of new fuel breaks to the region over the next decade or two, directly altering hundreds of thousands of hectares through habitat conversion, and indirectly affecting sagebrush plant and animal communities through the creation of new edge effects and habitat fragmentation” (Shinneman et al. 2018).
None of the studies that promote grazing to reduce fuels considers the unavoidable ecological impacts that accompany grazing. These include water pollution, soil compaction, trampling of biological soil crusts, the spread of weeds (as with cheatgrass), the social displacement of wildlife (like elk), and the loss of forage wildlife and insects, and costs.
While targeted grazing and the ecological impacts that result might be acceptable for small areas, say to reduce vegetation around a home or some other limited area, it is not effective or acceptable on a landscape scale. As such, it cannot aid in reducing large wildfires.
Furthermore, the probability that any area “treated” by targeted grazing and other fuel reductions will encounter a blaze when fuel removal is effective is extremely small (Rhodes and Baker 2008). Thus, targeted grazing and further fuel reductions, which have their own set of impacts, occur now, potentially reducing a fire that may or may not come in the future.
Anderson, Loren. 1991. Bluebunch wheatgrass defoliation effects and vigor recovery. BLM State Office, TECHNICAL BULLETIN 91-2
Bailey, Derek W., et al., 2019. Synthesis Paper: Targeted Livestock Grazing: Prescription for Healthy Rangelands, Rangeland Ecology & Management
Bailey, James A., 2016. Historic Distribution and Abundance of Bison in the Rocky Mountains of the United States. Intermountain Journal of Sciences, Vol. X, No. X, 201X
Beschta, R.L., D. L. Donahue, A. DellaSala et al., 2012 .“Adapting to climate change on western public lands: addressing the ecological effects of domestic, wild, and feral ungulates,” Environmental Management, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 474–491, 2012.
Belsky, Joy A. et al., 1993. Overcompensation by or red herring? Evolutionary Ecology, 1993, 7, 109-121
Belsky, Joy, and Dana M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics and Soils in Upland Forests of the Interior West Conservation Biology, Pages 315-327 Volume 11, No. 2, April 1997
Belsky, A.J., and J. L. Gelbard, 2000. Livestock Grazing and Weed Invasions in the Arid West, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Bend, Ore, USA, 2000.
Belsky, J.A., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman, 1999. “Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 419–431, 1999
Bird, S.B. et al. 2002 Spatial heterogeneity of aggregate stability and soil carbon in semi-arid rangelands. Environmental Pollution 116 pages 445-455
Bradley BA, Curtis CA, Fusco EJ, Abatzoglou JT, Balch JK, Dadashi S, Tuanmu M-N. 2017. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) distribution in the intermountain Western United States and its relationship to fire frequency, seasonality, and ignitions. Biological Invasions. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1641-8
Bruegger, Retta A. et al. (2016). Targeted Grazing in Southern Arizona: Using Cattle to Reduce Fine Fuel Loads Rangeland Ecology & Management Volume 69, Issue 1, January 2016, Pages 43-51
Carter, J. et al., 2014. Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems. International Journal of Biodiversity Volume 2014, Article ID 163431, 10 pages
Cheng, J. et al. 2011. Cumulative effects of 20-year exclusion of livestock grazing on above and below-ground biomass of typical steppe communities in arid areas of the Loess Plateau, China. Plant Soil Environ. 57, 2011 (1): 40–44
Clegg, Kenneth. 1994. Density and Feeding Habits of Elk and Deer in Relation to Livestock Disturbance Master of Science Utah State University.
Condon Lea and David Pyke. 2018. Fire and Grazing Influence Site Resistance to Bromus tectorum Through Their Effects on Shrub, Bunchgrass and Biocrust Communities in the Great Basin (USA) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-018-0230-8
Denmead, Lisa H., et al., 2015. Experimental evidence that even minor livestock trampling has severe effects on land snail communities in forest remnants. Journal of Applied Ecology 2015, 52, 161–1
Diamond, Joel, Christopher A. Call, and Nora Devoe. 2009. Effects of targeted cattle grazing on fire behavior of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland in the northern Great Basin, USA International Journal of Wildland Fire 2009, 18, 944–950
Dingpeng Xionga, Peili Shia, Xianzhou Zhanga, Chris B. Zou. 2016. Effects of grazing exclusion on carbon sequestration and plant diversity in grasslands of China—A meta-analysis. Ecological Engineering 94 (2016) 647–655
Dobkin, D.S., A. C. Rich and W. H. Pyle, 1998. “Habitat and avifaunal recovery from livestock grazing in riparian meadow system of the northwestern Great Basin,” Conservation Biology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 209–221, 1998
Fang Fei, Chang Rui-ying1, Tang Hai-ping. 2014. Effects of Grazing on Carbon Sequestration in Temperate Grassland, Inner Mongolia of North China Vegetos- An International Journal of Plant Research Volume: 27, Issue : 3 pgs. 126-134.
FAO, Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental Issues and Options (Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006).
Filazzola, A. et al. 2020. The effects of livestock grazing on biodiversity are multitrophic: a meta-analysis Ecology Letters, (2020) 23: 1298–1309.
Flather, C.H. L.A. Joyce and C.A. Bloomgarden. 1994.Species Endangerment Patterns in the United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-241. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Fleischner, Thomas. 1994. Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing on Western North America. Conservation Biology 8, no. 3629-644.
Freilich et al., 2003. Ecological Effects of Ranching: A Six-Point Critique. August 2003 / Vol. 53 No. 8 • BioScience 759
Freist, Terrence.J. 2002. Native Snails: Indicators of Ecosystem Health. Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West.
Goodland, R Anhang, J (2009) Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens, and cows? World Watch, November/December 2009. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Pp. 10–19. Available at: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
Hanson, Brian. 2020. Irrigation of Agricultural Crops in California. Department of Land, Air and Water Resources University of California, Davis email@example.com
Jones et al. 2020 Climate Change Increases the Risk of Wildfires. ScienceBrief
Ingram L.J. et al., 2008. Grazing impacts on soil carbon and microbial communities in a mixed-grass ecosystem. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 72:939-948
Kauffman B. and W. C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock Impacts on Riparian Ecosystems and Streamside Management Implications: A Review JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 37(5), September 1984
Keyser A. and Westerling Anthony, 2017, Climate drives inter-annual variability in probability of high severity fire occurrence in the western United States Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 6
Klumpp, K., Fontaine, S., Attard, E., Le Roux, X., Gleixner, G. and Soussana, J.-F. (2009), Grazing triggers soil carbon loss by altering plant roots and their control on soil microbial community. Journal of Ecology, 97: 876–885. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01549.
Mack Richard N. and John N. Thompson. 1982. Evolution of the Steppe with few large, hoofed mammals. The American Naturalist. Vol 19. No. 6.
McSherry, M., and Mark Richie. 2013. Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: a global review. Global Change Biology (2013) 19, 1347–1357, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12144
Minchkley, W.L., and J.E. Deacon. 1991. Battle Against Extinction: Native Fish Management in the West. U of Arizona Press
Myers, Bruce. 2014. Livestock’s Hoof Print-the Challenge of Regulating Global Warming Emissions. Environmental Law Institute, Policy Brief 8.
Reisner, Mark, and Sarah Bates. 1990. Overlapped Oasis: Reform or Revolution for Western Water. Island Press, Washington DC.
Reisner, Michael D. et al., 2013. Conditions favouring Bromus tectorum dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 2013
Rhodes Jonathan J. and William L. Baker. 2008. Fire Probability, Fuel Treatment Effectiveness and Ecological Tradeoffs in Western U.S. Public Forests The Open Forest Science Journal, 2008, 1, 1-7
Richter, B.D. et al., 2020. Water scarcity and fish imperilment driven by beef production. Nature Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0483-z
Ripple, W. et al., 2014. Ruminants, Climate Change, and Climate Policy. Nature Climate Change Vol. 3 www.nature.com/natureclimatechange
Root, Heather et al., 2019. Grazing disturbance promotes exotic annual grasses by degrading soil biocrust communities. Ecological Applications, 0(0), 2019, e02016
Savory, A., 2013. How to fight desertification and reverse climate change. https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_fight_desertification_and_reverse_climate_change/transcript?language=en
Shinneman, Douglas J., Cameron L. Aldridge, Peter S. Coates, Matthew J. Germino, David S. Pilliod, and Nicole M. Vaillant. 2018. A Conservation Paradox in the Great Basin—Altering Sagebrush Landscapes with Fuel Breaks to Reduce Habitat Loss from Wildfire. Open-File Report 2018-1034
Stewart, Kelly, et al., 2002. Temporospatiall distribution of elk, mule deer, and cattle. Resource partitioning and competitive displacement. Journal of Mammalogy, 83(1):229–244, 2002
Strand, E. et al., 2017. Do perennial bunchgrasses competitively exclude Bromus tectorum in post-fire rehabilitation across spatial scales? Fire Science JFSP PROJECT ID: 15-2-01-22
Treves, A. et al., 2019. Predator Control Needs a Standard of Unbiased Randomized Experiments With Cross-Over Design. Front. Ecol. Evol., 12 December 2019 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00462
Warren, S.D. et al., 1986. The Influence of Livestock Trampling under Intensive Rotation Grazing on Soil Hydrologic Characteristics. JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 39(6). November 1966
Wilcove, David, et al. 1998. Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States. Bioscience 607-613.
Williamson, Matt. A. et al., 2019. Fire, livestock grazing, topography, and precipitation affect occurrence and prevalence of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) in the central Great Basin, USA Biol Invasions https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02120-8(0123456789().,-vols() 0123458697().,-volV)
Wuerthner, George, and Mollie Matteson. 2002. Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the West. Island Press. Washington DC.
George Wuerthner is an ecologist and former hunting guide with a degree in wildlife biology
12 Responses to Targeted Livestock Grazing Won’t Preclude Large Wildfires
Subscribe to Blog via EmailJoin 968 other subscribers
- Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges May 27, 2023
- Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green May 26, 2023
- Senator Daines Ill-advised Forest Management Advocacy May 25, 2023
- Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves May 21, 2023
- Oregon’s Eagle Creek Wildfire–Six Years Later May 15, 2023
- Ida Lupine on Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves
- Mary on Save Our Sequoias Act–A Stealth Attack On NEPA, ESA and Our Sequoia Groves
- Rambling Dave on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Ida Lupine on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Mary on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Jeff Hoffman on Wildfire And California Home Insurance Challenges
- Jeff Hoffman on Senator Daines Ill-advised Forest Management Advocacy
- laurie on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Ida Lupine on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Jeff Hoffman on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Ida Lupine on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Ida Lupine on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Jeff Hoffman on Grizzlies Get A Win On Upper Green
- Maggie Frazier on Senator Daines Ill-advised Forest Management Advocacy
- Ida Lupine on Tribal Bison Slaughter Illegal?
Shameful that our representatives don’t do this kind of research BEFORE passing a bill that will only make the entire “fuel” problem much worse!
I assume the whole idea of this bill thrills the livestock industry to pieces.
Why Senator Diane Feinstein has not been challenged in the California primaries is a big mystery to me. She is a Democrat-lite and a half-hearted supporter of a better environment. Senator Feinstein even is supporting the ranchers in their quest to have native Tule Elk shot because they are eating grass that the ranchers say belong to them – even though the cattle and elk are grazing INSIDE PT. REYES NAT. SEASHORE north of San Francisco, which is supposed to be protected by the National Park Service.
There’s a story about it that was written here at TWN. I wish that the ranchers would be better ‘tenants’ and neighbors!:
In her last senatorial primacy she did have an opponent. Many pundits commented that her opponent did surprisingly well in the general election, though, of course he didn’t win. Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León challenged her in California’s jungle primary. De Leon did well in general election against here. De Leon running as a Democrat too (there was no Republican candidate) got 46% of the vote. Feinstein got 54%. De Leon entered the race less than a month before the general election and had little money or name identification.
At 87, it would seem to be time for Ms. Feinstein to retire & allow someone else a chance to get something done. Not impressed with her support of ranchers – certainly not at Point Reyes!
They’re planning a cull :(:
“In its final environmental review of the park’s general management plan amendment, the National Park Service’s preferred option is to extend leases for private ranchers from five-year terms to up to 20-year-terms. The 24 ranching families in the park and neighboring Golden Gate National Recreation Area would also be able to diversify their livestock beyond cows on a case-by-case basis to include other animals such as goats, chickens and pigs.”
How in the world is bringing in even more livestock going to help the environment? Absolutely outrageous.
And here, according from the Center for Biological Diversity:
“The plan allows the Park Service to shoot native Tule elk to appease ranchers and drive elk away from designated ranch lands. It sets an arbitrary population cap of 120 elk for the Drakes Beach herd, currently estimated at 138 elk, to be maintained by killing the animals. The Park Service can shoot any free-roaming elk that attempt to create new herds in the park, which is the only national park with Tule elk.
“The plan also allows conversion of park grasslands and wildlife habitat to artichoke farms and other row crops, as well as the expansion of commercial livestock farming to introduce sheep, goats, pigs or chickens. This will inevitably lead to conflicts with other native wildlife in the park and could result in ranchers calling for killing of coyotes, bobcats, foxes and numerous birds.
Artichoke farms plural? Where is the water going to come from?
I hope they can be sued from here to Kingdom Come.
Despite all the talk about targeted grazing and/or timbering, I never see comments that many of the California fires are primarily brush fires.
What about, say, keeping five small goats on a two-acre, rural-residential-zoned property, or some such similar approach? It seems to me that this article should be more clear (e.g., from the title on forward) as to what type of farming the author is seeking to examine. Obviously too many big creatures is only a detriment to the planet — see what we humans have done, for example — but it seems not very well thought-out to list all the ways in which cattle, and only cattle, are exacerbating and contributing to our drought crisis here out West.
Megan… Maybe the article was not clear enough, but the author is talking about the many problems caused by domestic livestock on our PUBLIC LANDS – he was not talking about private property. Cattle and sheep have no place in our PUBLIC LANDS, because they eat the grasses and flowers that should be reserved fir native wildlife and insects to flourish. The Government even allows the killing of native wild bison to protect land for cattle once the bison roam out of Yellowstone NP and set foot in the State of Montana. Elk are being proposed to be killed inside Pt. Reyes Nat. Seashore north of San Francisco, because the Nat. Park Service says they are eating the grass that tenant cattle owners want for their cows.
Cattle trample PUBLIC STREAM BEDS, thus further endangering species like bull-trout and salmon. To make matters worse, the cattle owners who are allowed to graze on our PUBLIC LANDS are heavily subsidized by the US Taxpayers.
And, as the author points out quite clearly, “targeted livestock grazing” will not stop a high-wind driven, dry season wild fire.