Western Fires and Extreme Environmentalism

Wildfires are destroying huge parts of Utah. And, yes, I use the word “destroying” intentionally, to suggest a long-term effect. Senators viewed the damage and direct some ire at environmental groups. That missive is creating its own fire storm in the comments section.

Hence, it’s time for my much-anticipated, 3rd-annual article on cheat grass! If you want to ace this year’s test, you’ll need to review the 1st and 2nd installments.

Fire has been an important part of rangeland ecology for millennia. However, during historic fire cycles, the period between fires was much, much longer (5- to 10-times longer) – allowing for far more heterogeneous speciation. Successional species were well adapted to those fires. Now, though, cheat grass – a 6’8”, 250-pound, tattooed, heavily-armed, escaped-from-death-row invasive species – has taken over the West and changed all that.

As I note in installment one – as you, my faithful reader, no doubt will recall – the ecologist from Yosemite (likely with sufficient scientific and environmental bona fides) points out that all rules are off when it comes to invasives. As Senator Peterson understands as well as anyone on the planet, cheat grass is an environmental catastrophe of the first order. Cheat grass promotes hot, frequent fires that wipe out any and all other plants and, thereby, promote growth of only one thing; you guessed it – more cheat grass. This, in turn, promotes hotter, more-frequent fires, which, then, promote . . .. You get the picture.

Extreme environmental groups, of course, did not introduce cheat grass. That likely was a function of pre-Taylor Grazing Act overgrazing. But extreme environmental groups invite further destruction by stopping reseeding efforts after fires. And they can be charged with fiddling while the West burns. If, for example, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance cared more about the land itself than the money generated for its organization by engaging in high-profile battles over lesser issues, it would make cheat grass a high priority. But it doesn’t. Cheat grass does not have a high enough profile for fundraising campaigns. A cheat grass eradication campaign would be a positive pro-active, get-something-done campaign, instead of a reactionary and highly-lucrative stop-those-bad-capitalists campaign. Thus, the resources of our land management agencies are squandered on less important battles, while cheat grass inflicts wholesale destruction on western rangelands.