Dear HCN,
It was fortunate that
your 10/2/95 issue had in it both the essay by Dave Brown and a
letter from William Dickinson. They allowed me to synthesize a new
perspective on the effects of cattle grazing on riparian areas. It
is now obvious that cattle are the victims of incredible bad luck.
They had the misfortune to arrive on the scene just prior to when
massive climate-induced riparian degradation began in the West.
They also were subjected to stricter controls in the latter part of
the century in some areas just as climate change was about to make
things better. What incredibly poor timing this has been. It would
appear to the naive that there was some cause-and-effect
relationship, when it is in fact just bad
luck.
Of course, this hypothesis must be fleshed
out with several corollaries to explain apparent anomalies. These
are:
* Fenced riparian corridors are vastly
improved over adjacent unfenced areas. This can be explained by a
variation on the 19th century belief that “Rainfall follows the
plow.” It now equates to “Rainfall follows the fence.”
* Riparian areas under strict control through
improved grazing regimes show marked improvement over adjacent
areas with poor grazing management. This can be explained by a
further modification of the above corollary, which can be expressed
as “Rainfall follows the good grazing plan.”
Certainly the greatest measure of bad luck has
befallen the cattle who must graze riparian areas without benefit
of fencing or good management. They will still be blamed for
conditions that are in reality the fault of climate change or a
lack of one of the above-described modifiers. Such is the nature of
fortune.
Jeffery
Grandison
Cedar City,
Utah
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Rainfall follows the fence and other lessons from HCN.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
