Dear HCN,
I am writing
in response to a letter from Nathan Sayre, wherein he reiterated
the often-heard claim from ranchers that the preservation of
public-lands ranching will prevent sprawl, (HCN, 3/17/03: Ranching
is preventing sprawl). I would like to respond to Mr. Sayre’s
conclusion that, “Even under mediocre management, I’ll
take one cow every 40 acres, over one house, any
day.”
His opinion seems to originate from the
popular assumption that agricultural development is inherently more
desirable than residential development. But agriculture is a human
technology, too. Most ranch base properties aren’t pristine
wild lands. They usually have houses, barns, sheds, fences, denuded
feeding pastures, irrigated fields and the associated water
diversions necessary to grow something on them. If the issue is
protection of natural wildlife habitats, and the species that rely
upon them, then there’s often little difference between a
ranch complex and a housing development. In both cases, the land is
developed. Usually, the gain in quality wildlife habitat that would
occur if grazing were stopped on the 30,000 or so acres of the
associated federal grazing allotment would more than offset
whatever marginal improvement in local wildlife habitat there might
be if the base property was maintained as a ranch instead of a
neighborhood.
If the issue is one of aesthetics, however,
ranches may be preferable to neighborhoods. But people
shouldn’t confuse preservation of the local pastoral scenery
with the preservation of our rapidly dwindling wild lands.
Jeff Burgess
Tempe, Arizona
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Ranches: Wildlands or scenery?.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
