Dear HCN,
Ranching
advocates like Ed Marston and Rick Knight present a faulty argument
when they assert that ranching can prevent sprawl (HCN, 1/20/03:
THE GREAT RANCHING DEBATE). If we wish to prevent sprawl and its
effects — a worthy goal — we need to implement
effective land-conservation strategies. Ranching as a
land-preservation strategy is flawed for three major
reasons.
First, livestock proponents vastly underestimate
the ecological costs of livestock production. Livestock production
involves crop production, water diversions, predator control,
fences and many other activities that carry tremendous ecological
costs. Livestock spread weeds, fragment wildlife habitat
(particularly aquatic ecosystems, because of water diversions for
irrigation), transmit diseases to native wildlife, consume forage
that would otherwise support native herbivores, trample soils,
pollute water sources, degrade riparian areas, truncate nutrient
flows and short-circuit ecological processes.
Second, livestock proponents ignore the vast geographical
differences between development and livestock production in their
respective physical footprint on the land. Animal agriculture
affects 70 percent to 75 percent of the U.S. land area —
development affects less than 3.5 percent. In the West, it is even
more skewed. For instance, a GAP analysis conducted by the U.S.
Geological Survey shows that only 530,000 of Colorado’s 66
million acres are affected by development, whereas 33 million acres
are grazed by livestock. Worse yet, more than 15,722,500 acres of
Colorado’s farmland are devoted to livestock forage crops
such as feeder corn, hay and alfalfa. These agricultural fields
alone are every bit as disastrous as shopping malls for most
wildlife. Hay or cornfields typically consist of exotic plants that
are removed annually. Many of these crops are irrigated and guzzle
precious water. Such fields effectively fragment and degrade more
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems than all urbanization and sprawl
combined.
Third, perhaps the most flawed part of
the ranching-as-preservation strategy is that ranching isn’t
preventing sprawl now, nor will it in the future. Sprawl is driven
by demand. Demand usually leads to rising land prices, which in
turn make it impossible to expand ranching operations through new
land acquisitions. It also means that anyone not already a
millionaire cannot even dream of entering the industry. When the
cost of land ownership rises above the price that can be returned
on investment raising cows, ranching will gradually be replaced by
higher-value land uses — usually development — if
demand is present. Fortunately, the greatest demand is concentrated
near urban centers and resort communities where jobs, medical
facilities, educational opportunities and other amenities are
found. People are not flocking to North Dakota despite cheap land.
No demand. No sprawl.
The only effective means of
controlling development in the face of rising land values is to use
proven, directed conservation mechanisms like zoning, conservation
easements and outright fee purchase to protect landscapes.
The argument that we must choose between condos
and cows is a false one. Condos or cows? Neither, is my
response!
George Wuerthner
Richmond,
VermonRichmond, Vermont
The writer co-edited the book
Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the
American West.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Condos or cows? Neither!.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
