What is your opinion on grassbanks? I invite you to submit your opinions to me sgripne@wyoming.com for posting

George Wurthener

1/31/2004 - printed with Author's Permission

I'm the author of Welfare Ranching--the subsidized destruction of the American West and also one of the author of a major eco-regional assessment for the Nature Conservancy in the Middle Rockies.

I think the grassbanks--i.e. Malpai-- examples mentioned your proposal have serious limitations that are seldom recognized or at least admitted by proponents. Furthermore, the fundamental problem grassbanks seek to remedy are created by the basis incompatibility of livestock production with the maintenance of the ecological integrity of the West.

I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that livestock production (not just grazing) is the most damaging human activity in the West, including in Montana. Livestock production includes all the effects of raising livestock in the arid West including soil erosion, impacts on water quality, dewatering of rivers for irrigation, predator control, changes in fire regimes as a consequence of grazing, the spread of exotic weeds, forage competition, changes in nutrient flows, and so on. When all of these impacts are consider, and when the breathe of landscape affected by these activities are reviewed, there is nothing that can compare to livestock production in terms of ecological degradation and impacts.

This isn't to suggest that sprawl and development aren't a problem in some specific areas--and something that is desirable to control. However, this threat pales in comparison to the ecological footprint of livestock production.

In brief, livestock production poses a far greater threat to biodiversity than subdivisions, therefore trying to find ways for livestock production to persist only aggregates the ongoing degradation of the landscape from all factors including exotic weeds (which livestock is the major vector) and things like sprawl.

I looked at your references ((Czech et al. 2000; Maestas et al. 2001; Theobald and Hobbs 2002) that find sprawl a threat and I can point out many problems with their statistics and fundamental assumptions. In general all exaggerate a great deal the amount of land that is being developed, and fail to consider the full ecological impacts associated with livestock production.

For instance, if you were list to all the endangered or threatened species in Montana and list the factors contributing to their decline, you would not find sprawl affecting any of them. In fact, if all wildlife in Montana had to deal with was sprawl, they wouldn't be endangered. But if you look at the ultimate causes for endangerment of grizzlies, wolves, swift fox, blackfooted ferret, sage grouse, columbia sharptail grouse, grayling, Yellowstone cutthroat, etc. you would find that livestock production is one of the MAJOR contributing factors--and relatively speaking, far more important in their demise than any other factors.

Let me give you just one example. In Montana according to the GAP analysis (I presume you know what that is--but I can explain if you don't) less than 0.17% of Montana is developed. By contrast, livestock production affects between 70-80% of the state. Indeed, something like 95% of the state according to the latest census has fewer than 4 people per square mile--or the population minimum that the 1890 census used to define "frontier". Most of Montana is plain empty of people--yet most of that empty land (most of eastern Montana for instance) is not suitable for many species due to the effects of one industry--livestock production. Just in terms of agricultural crops--hay fields--an exotic crop that is cut annually--providing very little wildlife habitat as a consequence--occupies more than 5 million acres in Montana. Just the impact of hay fields dwarfs all the development in Montana.

Furthermore, even if you were unwilling to accept my thesis that livestock production is far more serious a problem than sprawl, there is a flawed presumption that agriculture--specifically ranching--can preclude or prevent subdivisions. Again the evidence is all around since what development that is taking place occurs on former agricultural lands. Ranchers are all too happy to sell to developers if there's a demand--there is, however, not a demand everywhere--so we are not seeing major sprawl in places like Malta or Plentywood Montana despite the fact that you can buy ranchland there for a song. In fact, subdivisions are most prevalent in the very places where land prices are highest.

Anyway, if you are at all interested in a different perspective and a critical analysis of your thesis work, please get a hold of me either by email or by calling me at xxx-xxx-xxxx. If nothing else, it might help to make your thesis or dissertation stronger since I may be able to point out areas of your argument that are weak which you might be able to rectify and strengthen. Best: George Wuerthner

I invite your comments, suggestions, and any other sort of feedback you would like to give me Stephanie Gripne.

Stephanie Gripne, Boone and Crockett Wildlife Conservation Program, School of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, steph@compatibleventures.com