Dear HCN,
In Debra Donahue’s
opinion, “The writing is on the wall: Livestock grazing on
semi-arid public ranges is uneconomic and unsustainable. The only
solution is removing livestock altogether” (HCN, 2/28/00: A prof
takes on the sacred cow). I’m not familiar with the implications of
that statement in the state of Wyoming; I do know what that means
here in Montana, where many of our valley bottoms receive less than
12 inches of rainfall.
Put ranchers out of
business and we lose open space, access, wildlife habitat, riparian
corridors and scenic views to developers. Subdivisions and homes
will spring up where these ranches once stood. With them will come
noxious weeds, overgrazed horse paddocks, access restrictions,
vegetation conversions and barriers to wildlife
movement.
Surely there are other solutions than
offered by Donahue’s narrow view! Your editors juxtaposed Donahue’s
opinion and a review of her book in the same issue, led by an
article about saving the West’s disappearing open space. I hope the
contradiction didn’t elude you – and I certainly hope your readers
understand the consequences of taking up the banner of “removing
livestock altogether” from public lands. Donahue assumes because
public lands have a negligible influence on the national livestock
industry we can discount the effect of ranching on our lives.
Ranching in southwest Montana contributes significantly to the
quality of all our lives here – whether we profit economically from
their industry or not.
Janet
Bean-Dochnahl
Ennis,
Montana
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Dump cows – for what?.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
