Our Public Lands are essentially defined as a Multi-Purpose Use situation. Acceptable usage remains debatable, but one thing for certain — The fact is cattle grazing ruins our multi-purpose Public Lands, and the subject of this discussion.
A major problem that many of us have, regarding cattle, is the fact cattle herds are a non-native species and continue to destroy, on a large scale, many ecosystems shared by multi terrestrial and wildlife situations. This includes our Public Lands and the other element of this discussion.
Cattle on Public Lands Designated Multi-Use
Cattle are a non-native species and regulated, supposedly by grazing permits, to safe-guard the ecosystem on our Public lands. In reality we find cattle not regulated and never have been regulated responsibly by the BLM or Forestry. Cattle’s impact on the Public Lands environment always far greater than the roaming wild life such as wild horses, deer, elk, and other animals (good science agrees with this).
Visit our Public Lands occasionally and see for yourselves. Sometimes the most obvious is easiest to explain; Compared to BLM or Forestry who will attempt to convince all of us differently in regard to cattle and grazing permits.
Although, we find a few science reports (very few and more so dedicated to government agency and affiliated corporate bias), these few remain unacceptable to most research scientists. These same few reports state that all hoofed animals responsible for ecosystem destruction. The truth is there exist far more acceptable science reports, referenced well and proven by solid research techniques and data gathering, that remain in direct opposition to these few. And not so surprisingly the BLM and Forestry conducts their management on these few bias reports that many others refer to as Bad-Science.
A history of Bad Science
Something we as taxpayers should be made aware of in the burdensome government environmental science community is this fact: In the 1990’s there existed a profound discovery, and due to so much analytical debate over simple environmental science and reasoning issues. Not so ironic, it was found duplication of science and research jobs throughout many government agencies were being paid to accomplish the same things.
This confused the arena of scientific knowledge, with bias reports and fake or deceitful references conflicting with actual good science and provable data. Somehow or
another when Vice President Gore headed the committee to rid the government of these many duplicate job positions, it simply expanded, rather than took away the duplication. Yes, rather than retire the many scientists and researchers holding duplicate government job positions, out of public scrutiny more sub-sub-agencies were originated to keep these people employed, and not so ironic, with an ultimate and unethical goal to be achieved, and did achieve.
So there exists a split in the environmental community of science research and biology. And as one would believe, many of these researchers, to keep their jobs/careers, pointedly strive to appeal toward government and corporate bias. These are gov. employees in the non-descript and even unobservable government sub-sub-agencies, out of sight from the public. Often hidden within the government offices located on college campuses, or affiliated offices in the field groups connected to the Department of the Interior.
An audit would eventually bring these agencies to the publics attention, but for now remain low key. The only item the public does receive from these same sub-sub-agencies are bias science or environmental reports that essentially are meant to disguise, in proportionate helpings for the publics perusal. What we can all agree upon is what we call false information and misinformation, or confusing rhetoric.
This entire government fiasco, and sub-sub-agencies as was prescribed in the 1990’s, should not exist anyway. The program was meant to rid the government of duplication and resolve the confusion issues. But more, to appeal toward cost, and rid the government of the over burdensome situation of costly duplication. It was estimated even in the 90’s the government could actually save billions of dollars yearly by completing such a beneficial program, getting rid of excess, saving tax payers money.
Examples abound, but the most current and flagrant of them used most recently have rubbed many in the science community the wrong way. Combining all hoofed animals and stating they “All” ruin ecosystem habitat the same as cattle, is not only debatable and costly to taxpayers, but non-referenced within any good scientific parameters.
“We have found over the years government scientists making many bad or even useless statements, unqualified in regard to our environment. Their approach, because of methodology and time-pattern restraints alone within the localized habitat management decisions, places their entire data gathering and resolutions in conflict with any truth what so ever. Their theories become subordinate to politics, obviously bias.” James Spears, NSA Scientist-Retired.
It becomes obvious, when this knowledge known, that these contrived sub-sub-agencies continue to develop slanted and bias research for single-purpose, that equate to bad decision making — favorable to government budgets and politicians only.
Many within the science community do not wonder how these positions remain at all, as it is quite obvious, costly, and disgusting. “The fact is this, those people receive from $125,000 to $225,000+ per year income. And their entire objective is to confuse their unqualified findings with that of good science. These positions are useless and unneeded. Their references not useful to those who are in the know.” James Spears.
To those unfamiliar with these sub-sub-agency researchers, their material can blemish good policy making and basically generate bad decisions. Deplorable habitats and management apparently conflict today and is not only costly, but abusive. Go to a wild horse heard roundup, which is predicated on bad science, innuendo, and lies, and you will be just as disgusted with our government as the rest of us who have seen the atrocity.
Results of Bad Decisions from Bad Science
Ironically, within the same theory of “All” hoofed animals supposedly involved in ecosystem and habitat destruction, we can look at simple common sense attributes. For example, these same sub-sub-agency researchers support the elimination of Wolves (e.g. today’s sad wolf killing mania). This brings about an even better example of their trashy science, or simply put, their bad-science.
The well supported and referenced fact (Reality) is Wolves moderately and within natural methods, eliminate these same hoofed animals, for a proper habitat management situation. Trash-science conflicts directly with Reality and supported and referenced science. Bad science is accomplished here for political reasons, personal favors, and certain bias that supports a very minute amount of American tax payers. Yes, less than .001%.even though 100% of tax payers are expected to support the situation — which by the way do not do so, and remains unfavorable among the majority of tax payers and Americans.
In reality, wolves are essentially one of a few controls for a healthier habitat, protecting it from over browse and other harmful powers of influence, and for several reasons. This is nature’s own regulatory system within many ecosystems and habitats. Yes, conflicting virtues of trash-science research is that obvious.
What this means to the regular tax payer or individual concerned with ecosystem destruction, or all around negative situations within our environment? The fact is since cattle are non-natives, their impact on the environment is greater than native species like wild horses, elk, or deer. Cattle have always been unevolved in the ecosystems in which placed; therefore, they do not co-exist within an ecosystem well. Whereas, wild horse herds, deer, and elk are highly mobile foragers — cattle are stagnant foragers.
Conclusion
What does this mean? Well, wild horses, deer, and elk move around so much that they do not overgraze an area or cause soil damage. Cattle on the other hand, will often remain in the same area until they have eaten all or most of the edible material there. Only after most of the vegetation has been eaten will they move on. Cattle also need more forage than wild horses, elk, or deer together.
Cattle commit environmental atrocities. Fact! They reduce aesthetics with their fecal matter, with the trampling of vegetation, and with their mere presence. They overgraze, causing forage loss for other ungulates. Overgrazing has also been linked to soil erosion due to the loss of water retention and runoff reduction capacity of vegetation. Cattle destroy wetlands by grazing nesting habitat for waterfowl, by adding suspended solids and bacteria to the water, and increasing water temperature.
From personal experience, cattle also directly destroy waterfowl nesting sites, usually by trampling them. And Riparian habitats — lost in total — is happening way too much in today’s environment and on Public Lands. Multi-Use does not mean Multi-Use any longer, becoming another government oxymoron years ago.
What it does mean? Well, it means cattle and sheep grazing only, with a few energy systems and oil thrown in. Everything else is displaced — and supported by science, you say? Not even close — trash-science and bad-science, Yes! Good Science — NO! It is simple, it is a cause of many bad decisions made while referencing bad and bias science. This has got to change!
Photojournalist - Journalist 