I read with curiosity the recent article in The Tribune, “How heritage breeds could rescue ranching.”
Quotes from the rancher promoting the pretty drought-tolerant Criollo cows concurred that previous ranching methods have caused a loss of native grasses — “such as Indian rice grass and needle and thread grass, meaning shrubs such as ephedra and shade scale are increasingly defining the landscape.”
He goes on to say, “So if you have an animal that can eat more shrubs you have a lot more options. That’s important because research indicates that the Colorado Plateau will become more shrubbier as less adaptable native grasses are killed off by warmer, drier weather.”
So my question is: Wouldn’t it make more sense to focus on replenishing the desert to become a diverse, moisture absorbing, cooler landscape? Why further degrade the land with livestock that can destroy even more varieties of vegetation?
Replenish. Revegetate. Regenerate. Revitalize. Renew.
These are the words that have the power to change the landscape from dehydrated and debilitated to a moisture absorbing, water rich, life-sustaining environment.
YouTube is loaded with videos of successful regenerative land projects from private backyards to massive thousand acre ranches in Australia and whole provinces in China. Even in the USA, dedicated ranchers have transformed vast, dry areas in New Mexico, Nevada and the Texas outback into lush reserves where they have restored springs, wetlands, creeks, forests, and thick grasses that soak up the marginal rains. First course of action was to minimize the presence of livestock.
Practicing the same management policy with a different breed of cow does not replenish the land, it just promotes continued degradation to a wider variety of vegetation.
Suggested reading from peer.org: “New map shows harmful impacts of BLM livestock grazing program.”
Kaki Hunter, Moab
