Federal Lands Grazing

I think that we should allow grazing of domestic animals on public lands. Although there are many potentially negative aspects, they are easily overtaken by the positive ones. Environmentalists claim that by allowing domestic animals to graze freely in wild habitat, the natural ecosytems will be destroyed in that area (http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/). This is a valid point that should be considered. Another point is often made that leasing public land is cheaper that renting private land (http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range456/hot-topics/grazing-fees.htm). This creates dicrepencies, so should also be dealt with. The last main point I would like to make is the potential amount of energy in the form of meat that can be harnessed by utilizing public grazing land.

Environmentalists have brought up the valid point that natural ecosysytems can be detroyed by the over-grazing of public livestock. Plant life that wild grazing animals depend on could potentially be consumed by domestic livestock. This could lead to the malnutrition and possible starvation of these native animals. Without the herbavores in an ecosytem, the carnivores also cannot survive. Without primary producers (grasses, trees, etc.) the entire ecosystem will fall apart. Erosion can also become a problem where large domestic livestock are grazing. Where the soil is degraded less plant life is able to take root, this leads to less food for both domestic and the indigenous animals. In small numbers, domestic livestock does not pose a large threat. But when a certain area is overgrazed, the natural ecosystem cannot support the numbers of both the large domestic and native animals. Natural ecosytems should be evaluated by professionals to calculate the number of domestic animals that can be added to an ecosystem without harming the natural environment.

It is cheaper to lease public grazing land than to lease private land. The pricing should stay this way for it is fair in many ways. When someone leases public land for grazing they are just leasing the rights to graze their animals on that land. When someone leases private land, that deal is between the owner and the renter.In the private arena, the renter can make a personalized deal with the owner, while public deals are set. With public lands there are no fences in many cases, and it becomes the livestocks owner's responsibility to keep them contained. In private deals the area is often time fenced. In private deals there is almost always surveilance on the livestock, while with public the rancher takes on the added liability of having his livestock less secure and private. But public should be leased for a price. The revenue taken in can be used to fund the governments land management programs. These programs help to keep our lands in a sustainable form. We must keep our lands viable for a posterity.

The forest service controls 307 million acres (http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range456/hot-topics/grazing-fees.htm). It is hard to imagine that all of this land is being utilized by the indigenous grazing animals. American ranchers should be allowed to utilize the potential energy of this large amount of land. The grass that is living and dying without being eaten is a waste of potential energy. Instead of just being decomposed by a microorganism, that roughage can be eaten by a cow, that can in turn, be used for human consumption. Granted we should not overgraze the land that would lead to disastrous environmental affects, we should graze as much of this land as possible. We might have the possibility of opening up the organic meat market, and we may also lower the risks of wildfires.

With the overwhelming amount of potential energy in wild American, it would be irrational not to harness it. We should keep the wild in a natural state though. But there is a balance to be had. We can graze as many livestock as is healthy for that particular environment. This leads to a healthy relationship between man and wild.