 |
Re: [RC] response to Heidi - Barbara McCraryThe following post is an interesting observation of a scientist at work here in our county: Back in the 1960s, when our local branch of the University of California was just getting started, a young, idealistic student protested the grazing of cattle on the large ranch property that had been deeded to the University by the heirs of the original owner. The land had limestone deposits on it and quarrying was the main industry in the 1800s. The limestone was rendered into powder to make cement by means of burning it in stone kilns, using vast amounts of old-growth redwood for fuel. Fast forward many decades: no longer is limestone being quarried, but cattle are grazed on the lands. Then the university starts building, building, building. The property is considered the most beautiful site for a college campus; many of the buildings, most in fact, are sited next to lovely stands of second-growth redwoods. Many stands of redwoods have been removed in order to build more large buildings. In the early years of the university, this one particular student insisted the cattle be removed from the campus.....they were destroying the vegetation and the wild flowers, he argued. The cattle were removed. Fast forward a couple more decades: the young student has grown up, matured, and is seeing the world around him with more practical eyes and he notices that the now-ungrazed land hasn't the stands of wildflowers that he notices on land that IS being grazed. He sets out to do some comparative studies, and he finds that land that is actively being grazed has vast stands of wildflowers, plus stands of native grasses, compared to lands that are not being grazed, which have poorer stands of flowers. Hard to believe, but proven by scientific studies, control plots, etc. Our ranch has had cattle on it continuously for at least 135 years and we had gorgeous stands of wildflowers and native grasses. And....cattle have now been reintroduced onto the university meadows. It sounds like the scenario below represents an overpopulation of cattle for the space allotted. And a dairy herd is usually managed differently than a beef cattle herd. Our small herd of beef cattle is in proportion to the acreage we manage, and the pastures look great, wildflowers and all. Maybe the person who wrote the post below needs to realize that the privilege of being well-fed comes with a price, too. If it came to a choice of our nation's population having enough to eat, versus having our lands looking pretty all the time (if indeed they would look prettier for lack of livestock), I think our bodies would demand food first and esthetics second. I believe we can have both at the same time. It's a matter of wise management. And now, I've said all I'm going to say on the matter. Barbara ----- Original Message ----- From: <heidi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [RC] response to Heidi And PLE-ZZZE, cattle are hoofed locusts! Next time you go out look at the riparian habitat in the area, you know, the streams where cattle stand in the water all day and shit in it, destroying the habitat for the rest of the creatures. We have a mountain here that is Open Space but came with a price, the original dairy owner keeps his herd on it. Forget wildflowers, there aren't any, and all water has to be wired off or it will be destroyed by the cattle. ============================================================ REAL endurance is reading the LD vs. Endurance thread/debate every 3 months!!! ~ Heidi Sowards ridecamp.net information: http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/ ============================================================
|