By: Josh Tatman
We all love a good scapegoat. Buy a wingshooter a drink, and they'll tell you exactly why bird numbers aren't better. “It's the damned coyotes. No one traps anymore so they’re eating all the birds.” Or maybe, “It’s the damned Coloradans. They’re everywhere. Can’t even find a place to hunt anymore without running into a Greenie.”
Occasionally you’ll actually hear a hypothesis that has an empirical foundation, but more often it’s strawman theories based on anecdotes and hearsay. If you follow the threads of logic, regardless how thin, you usually arrive at some sort of justification for personal behavior.
It also works the other way around. While we are quick to cast blame when it comes to matters of conservation and wildlife stewardship, we are also quick to excuse. Spend any length of time considering the future of wild upland birds, and you are likely to come face to face with the livestock industry. From the quail covers of the desert mountains to grouse coulees on the northern Plains, there are cows everywhere.
Most of us relish a big ol’ cheeseburger. Our taste buds might cloud our objectivity, but so does the American love for the cowboy myth. Either way, when it comes to wild bird conservation, livestock and grazing impacts are usually only discussed with an awkward deference. “What’s good for the bird is good for the herd!” exclaim proponents of agricultural partnerships.
Cooperation between producers and wildlife advocates is certainly a good thing, and sustained agricultural land use is preferable to energy extraction or subdivisions. Nevertheless, the hunting community as a whole seems darned reticent to consider whether livestock production is in fact symbiotic with game bird conservation.
In Wyoming’s Red Desert, researchers recently demonstrated that wild (or feral) horse expansion has a negative impact on sage grouse numbers. Unsurprisingly, this study quickly made the rounds amongst upland hunters. “Aha! See! It’s the wild horses.” It shouldn’t be too surprising that increased forage competition leads to habitat degradation for all creatures great and small.
Whether you think wild horses should remain on western rangeland, it’s hard to ignore the fact that there are many, many more cows out there. How can wild horses be bad, but cows don’t matter? If you really dig into the research, you will likely conclude that livestock grazing does in fact matter, but how much depends on many variables.
Heavy grazing of critical brood-rearing habitat for dryland species like sage grouse and Mearn’s quail can reduce food resources, but more importantly reduce the cover young birds need to avoid predators. In other cases, grazing can actually improve habitat for species like prairie chickens and bobwhites in mesic tallgrass prairies. This is especially true in places where the natural effects of wildfire and wild ungulate grazing no longer reset grassland succession.
Grazing not only affects vegetation height, but also hastens the spread of invasive plants, especially in overgrazed areas. Exotic species like chukar thrive off invasive cheatgrass, while native sage grouse suffer from its spread. Is livestock grazing detrimental to upland birds? The only reasonable answer is, “It depends.”
The ranchers that make a living on both public and private grasslands have a disproportionate amount of power in local, state, and national politics. Many of these folks are passionate about conserving the land for future generations, but most also have to make a living, whether or not their land management practices are good for wildlife.
America has a love affair with the idea of the lone cowboy who carves a living out of the land. Most ranchers are now the product of generational wealth, or they bring their money from some other industry like tech or pharmaceuticals. Should conservationists tip-toe around the power that these livestock producers wield?
Given the current economic and political climate, we may have little choice. Conservation programs like The Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) work with ranchers through the Farm Bill to improve rangeland conditions. Through taxpayer funding, we pay ranchers to do better at managing habitat for wildlife. The SGI has close partnerships with the NRCS, Pheasants Forever, and other heavyweight conservation and land management players.
On the southern Plains, lesser prairie chickens were recently listed as a threatened species- to the outcry of cattle producers across the region. Conservationists might like to pretend that ranchers are all our friends, but when it comes down to the money, the livestock industry sometimes flexes its muscle and fights conservation efforts, dwindling game birds be damned.
It could be generations before game birds and other wildlife are valued equally or more than livestock on North American grasslands. In the meantime, what is the best course for those who want to advocate for wildlife? In the words of the old adage, we should be “as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves.” It does no good to go out of our way to make enemies. However, objective conservationists should also abstain from kissing the rump of the livestock industry.
Where our goals align, upland bird lovers should hasten to partner with ranchers, including ponying up money to make conservation worth it. When grazing is bad for the birds, we need the courage and integrity to stand up for better land management. Ultimately, the future of our upland birds hinges on the democratic process. It is up to us to level the playing field by voting for politicians who give a hoot about wildlife, instead of ranching tycoons who put their traditions-and profits- ahead of anything else.
