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.
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.
posted by steve u. at 7/12/2007
Subscribe
7 Comments:
Do you ever refer to conservationists without using the term "extreme environmentalists"? In your view, who are the non-extremists?
Good question. There is very distinct difference between extreme environmental organizations and conservation organizations.
To me, Sierra Club, SUWA, and Center for Biological Diversity are organizations that place fundraising and power over science and sound results. They chase the most sensational things, instead of the most important things. And because they brand issues for fundraising, like Kellogg's brands Corn Flakes, they have a disincentive to resolve problems. Resolution hurts cash flow.
Conservation organizations, to the contrary, work to find long-term solutions and accomplish lots of overall good. A great example of that is The Nature Conservancy, including our Utah branch of TNC.
A problem in this area -- like in so many others -- is that money is made on the extremes. It is tough to raise money by staking out a position of reasonableness. "We will look for win-win solutions" is less effective at parting people from their cash than is the position of "We will lay our bodies on the tracks."
As a drive-by witness to the fire destruction in our State, I was shocked. We ALL care about the environment and nature. Doing the RIGHT thing sometimes means letting go of one's pride. Stay with it, Steve.
I agree with you on the cheat grass problem. It is especially hard on ranchers who have to face less productive range land and more frequent fires that damage fences and other range infrastructures.
You seem to imply that SUWA and other environmental organizations oppose reseeding after fires. I haven't been privy to these types of arguments.
It may be that some in SUWA blame the cheatgrass epidemic on poor range management and overgrazing practices which benefit grasses that have a short life span such as cheat grass. But I can't speak for them.
It may also be the case where some environmental organizations simply are opposed to grazing on public lands, believing the federal government has given a significant subsidy that ultimately degrades the land. So long as those arguments are based upon sounds science, I'm willing to read more and decide for myself.
the spread of cheat is indeed a consequence of overgrazing. let's not pretend that such a consequence does not continue to loom large over post fire management policies and practices.
you note that "extreme environmentalists" obstruct re-seeding efforts which might contribute to healther rehab. re-seeding is not opposed. re-seeding with NON-NATIVES is opposed. re-seeding to maximize livestock "utilization" is opposed. allowing cattle onto the burn after a mere 2 years is opposed (it's not enough to ensure the seeding efforts are successful and to prevent soil disturbance which spreads more cheat).
all-too-often the reseeding efforts that you mention are done with non-natives. Quite frequently Crested wheat-grass, Siberian wheat-grass, and larger, more "productive" cultivars (which they call "native cultivars" but are 'cultivars' look the word up). These species are framed as desirable on several fronts but in practice end up beneficial on only one front.
1) Agencies claim that they prevent the incursion of cheat and fire. The basis of the claims rest on the wide margins between the plants. The efficacy of these claims is questionable and wholly dependent on the absence of disturbance (a condition only possible when "extremist environmentalists" are able to keep cattle off for more than a couple of years post-fire). Here is a picture of the blessed exotics in practice rather than theory. This is a photo of Jarbidge (the murphy blaze tore through large parts of Jarbidge) - The taller grasses are Crested Wheat grass, the exotic that TNC, their cattle-industry pals, and BLM tout as being resistant to cheat. Guess what that golden carpet between the CWG is?... Do you suppose that's flammable?
The only thing that landscape is resisting is the natural plant and animal communities that "conservationists" are supposed to be advocating for.
2) Ranchers like CWG, Siberian wheatgrass, and larger cultivars because the stocking rates used to determine the amount of cattle allowed to graze on public lands are determined based on the biomass of the grasses (forage). Exotics like CWG, Siberian wheatgrass, and larger bunch cultivars have more biomass (which ironically translates into more fuel when cured) thus ranchers are allowed to stock our land more heavily, thus spread cheat more prolifically and denude native communities more hastily. How ?
Cattle prefer luscious natives to the coarse exotics that ranchers, agencies, and TNC advocate lacing across our public land. This results, in practice, in the reduced vigor of native communities and the excellerated proliferation of cheat as the cattle drag their feet through soil crusts (the only defense our native ecosystems have against cheat seed germination) browsing through and around CWG et al in search of natives.
i hope that this contributes to the "holistic" understanding of the "extreme environmentalists" perspective. It's the practice of scientists on the ground monitoring the actual condition of the land - rather than politicians, industry, and their green-cover handing the public theories about non-natives that have been diminishing the integrity of our environmental heritage for decades.
thank god there are organizations with the integrity and backbone to take the popularity-hit when standing for the science on the ground and against industry and industry's politicians rather than folding like a cheap paper-sack with the hopes of achieving better political access. one is easy and feels fuzzy, 'right' is rarely easy.
Here's what the land should look like out there. That's at the same elevation as the first "rehabbed" pic.
brian ertz
Brian,
Excellent comment! Steve Urquhart knows the damage cheatgrass does, but he is misinformed as to why it spreads and the role of conservation groups, especially those like the Western Watersheds Project, in fighting to restore native grasses and forbs from this awful invader.
I would not place much faith in the Nature Conservancy in this regard, however. They are more interested in playing at cowboy than restoration of a healthy range.
Your photo examples are most telling
Brian,
Your photos are most telling in many ways. If the crested wheatgrass was not in the after-fire photo, what would be there instead? Probably 100% cheatgrass. All research points to the enhanced ability of crested wheatgrass over natives to establish in the presence of cheatgrass competition. And your natural photo? The photo might show a part of the continuum that the land can sustain in that area, but it should hardly look like that all the time, under every climatic regime, at every stage of a disturbance cycle.
Overgrazing has been a problem, and continues to be in many areas. But by limiting the use of 'nonnatives' and 'herbicides', we will be stuck with a cheatgrass monoculture. The best we can try to do is set the system on a different trajectory than the cheatgrass/fire cycle. And this may take several iterations of rehab. The first might be the planting of crested wheatgrass (along with natives), to try and reduce the cheatgrass seedbank over time.
Why is it that the very people who are most apt to scream the dangers of climate change to our ecosystems, think that we should keep all ecosystems just as they were at a different temperature and different atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. If man doesn't manage, these terrestrial systems will change themselves, sometimes abruptly and catastrophically, resulting in a veg community that nobody wants. Why do you think that most of the middle east is desert? I'm guessing that this overgrazing, annual grass invasion, loss of soil, change in climate scenario happened there thousands of years ago.
Post a Comment
<< Home