Why Ranching Won’t Preclude Subdivisions

I recently received a comment on my The Wildlife News article, Audubon Society Embraces Ranching. The commentator suggested if we don’t accept ranching, we will have subdivisions everywhere.

I’ve written a lot about this.

Rural subdivision encoaches on ranchlands near Hamilton, Montana. Photo George Wuerthner

It is one of the oldest arguments from livestock proponents and most mainstream conservation groups like The Nature Conservancy and others to deflect criticism of the ranching industry.

It is sometimes called the Condos vs Cows debate. However, most proponents of the livestock industry have many mistaken assumptions and do not fully account for livestock impacts.

There are five main points to consider, and I will expand on them below.

  1. The physical footprint of the livestock industry is vastly more significant than that of all the urbanization in the country.
  2. Subdivisions and urban growth are generally restricted to locations with high amenity values, so they are not a threat across most of the West.
  3. Nearly all cities in the West are located on former ranch or farmlands. Ranching isn’t an effective means of precluding subdivisions.
  4. Other more certain and effective means of precluding growth than ignoring the livestock industry’s ecological and environmental costs exist.
  5. Not all subdivisions represent a loss of wildlife habitat. In many instances, they may improve wildlife habitat.

Geographic Footprint

Livestock grazing on public and private lands (including hay production and other forage crops grown to feed livestock) occupies about 70% of the lower 48 land area.

By comparison, all the urbanization and rural non-farm land in the lower 48 states, defined as highways, factories, subdivisions, cities, etc., occupies about 7% of the US land area.

Montana’s Gallatin Valley, where Bozeman is located, is predominately Ag land. Photo George Wuerthner

However, even the 7% figure may understate livestock-influenced landscapes since large lots classed under rural housing could theoretically also be grazed or used to grow livestock forage.

Cattle grazing in the Gallatin Valley, Montana. Photo George Wuerthner

Even if ranches were subdivided, livestock production’s physical and ecological footprint would be so much greater that there would be no comparison.

Highway 50 in Nevada, known as the “Lonliest Highway in America” passes through a number of small communities where subdivisions are not a threat. Photo George Wuerthner

The amount of land under livestock production is even more an issue in the West, where so much of the land is public (thus cannot be subdivided but is still grazed).

Much of the West is public land that cannot be subdivided but, nevertheless, is devoted to livestock production. Bighorn National Forest, Wyoming. Photo George Wuerthner

For example, a GAP analysis (using air photos) found that 0.17% of Montana was urbanized. That’s 0.17, which may have increased slightly since the GAP analysis was done, but even if it had been doubled, it would have been insignificant overall. However, livestock production, including grazed public lands, occupies about 70% of Montana.

The ecological footprint of Bozeman, Montana. Photo George Wuerthner

Ranching Doesn’t Prevent Subdivisions

The second fallacy is that if one doesn’t criticize ranching, it will preclude subdivisions. Do you want to show me where that has ever happened?

The Wasatch Front urban area is carved from former ranchland. Photo George Wuerthner

With few exceptions, every city in the West is carved from ranch or farmland. If Ag use was a good conservation strategy, would we have the Front Range Cities in Colorado, the Wasatch Front in Utah, Bozeman, Boise, Las Vegas, Reno, Tucson, Phoenix, Albuquerque, or even Los Angeles?

Cropland in Central Valley from the air, California. Photo George Wuerthner

All of these cities were built on former ranchlands. If being nice to ranchers is your best strategy for avoiding subdivisions, maybe it’s time to rethink it because it does not work.

High Amenity Values Drive Subdivisions

Third, most of the subdivided lands in the West are located in areas with high amenity values. They are not random. People flock to places with beautiful scenery, universities, ski resorts, good fishing, and other factors. Also, having good transportation links like jet service and Interstate highways is essential.

Jackson, Wyoming, located near Grand Teton National Park, has some of the highest amenity values in Wyoming, and not surprisingly, real estate is expensive. Photo George Wuerthner

Jackson, Wyoming has the most expensive real estate in Wyoming and subdivision of ranchland is on-going, but in Jeffrey City, Wyoming near the southern end of the Wind River Range, houses are almost given away.

Dubois, Idaho main street, a town where most residents wouldn’t mind seeing some new economic opportunities. Photo George Wuerthner

Most of the grazed West is not threatened by subdivisions because no one wants to live in most of these places. Why is Highway 50 in the middle of Nevada called the “loneliest road in America?

Gerlach, Nevada. Photo George Wuerthner

Most of Nevada outside of Reno and Las Vegas has some of the lowest populations in the West. Houses are cheap. Why aren’t people flocking to places like Austin, Winnemucca, Gerlach, and other Nevada towns?

“Busy” main street in Jordan, Montana. Photo George Wuerthner

How about Montana? We hear about the tremendous growth of counties like Gallatin (Bozeman), Missoula, and Flathead (Kalispell), but many parts of Montana have lost their populations. In the last census, 19 out of 56 counties in the state lost population, and another dozen barely held on as relatively stable. Why aren’t people chomping at the bite to move to Plentywood or Jordan, Montana?

Reserve, New Mexico. Photo George Wuerthner

What about Cortez or South Park or Aramosa, Colorado, not to mention all the towns on the plains of Colorado? There is no housing rush there. How about Reserve New Mexico next to the Gila Wilderness?

I could say the same for much of Wyoming, Arizona, Utah, North and South Dakota, Idaho, and Oregon.

Land use zoning urban growth boundary Willamette Valley by Eugene Oregon. Photo George Wuerthner

Subdivisions are a threat in some local and regional parts of the West, but ranching doesn’t preclude it. The best way to deal with subdivisions is to enact good zoning laws like Oregon which has state-wide zoning and a rancher can’t simply subdivide his or her land. It’s not a threat. BTW, Oregon’s land use laws were passed by a Republican legislature with a Republican governor.

Ag Lands are Often Biological Deserts

Finally, subdivisions are not necessarily the worst thing that can happen to land (it depends, of course, on where they occur). However, much of the subdivisions occurring in Montana’s Gallatin Valley are in former hay or wheat fields, which are biological deserts. Most subdivisions, by comparison, typically have landscaping that provides more wildlife habitat per acre than a typical AG field.

Irrigated hay field by Howe, Idaho. The field is dominated by one plant species and is a biological desert. Photo George Wuerthner

My own city hosts where I have native and non-native shrubs and trees, at various times, is home or used by several dozen bird species, native ants, bees, butterflies, salamanders, frogs, snakes, rabbits, raccoons, mice, skunks, etc. up to deer (who unfortunately consumes my flowers in the spring). And my lot is in the middle of the city–not out on the fringes.

This home near Driggs, Idaho is surrounded by landscaping and has much higher biodiversity values than the adjacent hay field. Photo George Wuerthner

I challenge anyone to find as much diversity in a typical hay or wheat field.

Don’t get me wrong. I prefer wildlands. The choice is not ranching or subdivisions. In most parts of the West with high amenity values, once land values rise above where one can earn enough from Ag production to pay a mortgage, you wind up with one or two options.

Bison graze Ted Turner’s Flying D Ranch near Gallatin Gateway, Montana. Increasingly in high-value areas, wealthy individuals are bying property and have no incentive to subdivide the land. Photo George Wuerthner

Either a very wealthy individual will purchase the ranch as a “private estate,” which is common in the parts of the West with high amenity values, or a developer will buy the land and subdivide.

Subdivision in Redlands California. Photo George Wuerthner

Even in California, which possesses the most valuable farm/ranch land in the West, rising land prices have led to changes in land use.

In any case, ranch land’s value in growing population centers has less to do with its potential agricultural value and more with its amenity value.

Irrigated alfalfa field near Vicksburg, Arizona is a biological desert. Photo George Wuerthner

The most effective means of protecting land is through public acquisition where at least it is unlikely to be permanently developed (notwithstanding solar farms, oil wells, and the like) or regional-state comprehensive zoning that requires all development within urban growth boundaries, which directs growth to specific locations.

Comments

  1. Wayne Tyson Avatar
    Wayne Tyson

    Here in So Cal, land zoned for agriculture is know as a “holding zone” to keep taxes down on land being held for development.

    1. Wayne Tyson Avatar
      Wayne Tyson

      Rather than “mosaic landscapes”* we need interconnected corridors instead–both for agriculture’s and ecosystems’ benefit. Little isolated chips or patches of ecosystem fragments in a sea of agricultural development are Mad Ave “shitholes” for billionaire builder’s brochures, reports, applications, sumbittals, and other bs just as “Collaborative partnership,” “agroecology” and “carbon credits,” not to mention “ecological” are terms of public deception.
      https://www.fao.org/collaborative-partnership-on-forests/events/scaling-up-agroecology-for-restoration-and-conservation-in-mosaic-landscapes/en

      1. Ida Lupine Avatar
        Ida Lupine

        Yes, very much so.

  2. Ida Lupine Avatar
    Ida Lupine

    I haven’t eaten beef in may years for the toll it takes on land and wildlife. But unfortunately, I don’t think people everywhere are going to stop eating it. So something has to be done to make it better.

    I don’t know why it is that our leadership cannot do the right thing when it comes to wildlife corridors and protecting lands. I’m still wondering about the 30 x 30 Project? Is it still even on the table?

  3. Anotherview Avatar
    Anotherview

    Agree if ranching has no additional restrictions. However, if the arrangement includes a conservation easement that precludes subdivision and development, then at least there is an opportunity to have a conservation buyer eventually acquire it intact. That becomes much harder when the land is subdivided and developed.

    1. Wayne Tyson Avatar
      Wayne Tyson

      Good point. Beware of the (legal) distinction between “designated” and “dedicated.” All Lawyerbabble.

  4. Michael G Sauber Avatar
    Michael G Sauber

    Another point to make – ranching in the arid west is not economical. One way to keep ranching is to keep selling of “ranchettes”. The So – called “radical center” group, the Quivira Coalition” Enviros and Ranchers holding hands, hosted a local rancher as a model rancher during a talk in Silver City, NM. He was exposed as a subdivider of ranchettes after stating “if you don’t have ranchers, you will have subdivisions. Rich words…

Leave a Reply

Author

George Wuerthner is an ecologist and writer who has published 38 books on various topics related to environmental and natural history. He has visited over 400 designated wilderness areas and over 200 national park units.

Subscribe to get new posts right in your Inbox

×