Elk will be gone in Idaho by 2012

[wolfbait]

"You can do the same thing in each of the western states and it quickly becomes apparent that logging, proper grazing, farming, and even gas and oil development is very compatible with wildlife when done properly. "

I think it's a question of which came first. Do deer live on ground that is grazed because grazing made it better, or do cattle graze on land because it's richer in food than surrounding habitat, and therefore also attracks deer?

There are many factors that influence the distribution of animals on the landscape.  Bob33 and bobcat make excellent points.  Those that reference seeing more deer on grazed land must also consider other external factors - a big one being hunting pressure...is said grazing land open to public hunting? Or is it private land with restricted hunter numbers?  That can have a much bigger influence than habitat quality on animal distribution during hunting seasons.

As I stated earlier, grazing has its place on multi-use public lands.  While we are focusing very narrowly on deer and elk, let us not forget the impacts grazing can have on fish, riparian habitats, and other large scale factors like the introduction and spread of invasive species (noxious weeds etc.) and diseases...wild sheep? Hoof Rot?

Lots to consider.

Grazing as a Public Good

Rangeland science backs up Hoch’s contention. Studies in numerous states show that conservation grazing can as much as double plant diversity in an area—it not only prevents overgrazing but the cattle’s manure and urine helps recharge the soil’s biology. Hoch and other habitat experts working in western Minnesota have observed how grazing has increased native plant communities by knocking back invasive cool season plants like Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome. Such invasives can blanket the land with a homogeneous cover, which limits the diversity wildlife such as deer, waterfowl, shorebirds and grassland songbirds require. Such grasses also tend to go dormant in hot weather and provide limited habitat and foraging areas for pollinators.

Cattle are also being used to thin out cattails and reed-canary grass around wetlands, providing the open areas many waterfowl prefer when keeping a lookout for predators. And controlled grazing of riparian areas is proving to be an effective way to stabilize areas along waterways and lakes.

The science has become so convincing that conservation groups such as the Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society have changed their once decidedly negative view of cattle and now see them as an effective habitat management tool.

http://landstewardshipproject.org/posts/627

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.150.html

[WAcoyotehunter]

It's not fair to compare wildife numbers in wilderness areas to other areas. Most, if not all, wilderness areas are wilderness because it's the most unproductive land and when this country was settled, nobody wanted it. It wasn't good for farming, grazing, or logging. Almost all of  the official wilderness areas in Washington state are high elevation, and made up of more rock than anything else. Of course those areas don't have a high density population of deer and elk. It's not due to a lack of cattle grazing in those areas! Obviously deer and elk are going to do better in areas with good soil where there is plenty to eat. And, coincidentally, that is also where domestic livestock does the best.

Thank you!

[Bob33]

"You can do the same thing in each of the western states and it quickly becomes apparent that logging, proper grazing, farming, and even gas and oil development is very compatible with wildlife when done properly. "

I think it's a question of which came first. Do deer live on ground that is grazed because grazing made it better, or do cattle graze on land because it's richer in food than surrounding habitat, and therefore also attracks deer?

There are many factors that influence the distribution of animals on the landscape.  Bob33 and bobcat make excellent points.  Those that reference seeing more deer on grazed land must also consider other external factors - a big one being hunting pressure...is said grazing land open to public hunting? Or is it private land with restricted hunter numbers?  That can have a much bigger influence than habitat quality on animal distribution during hunting seasons.

As I stated earlier, grazing has its place on multi-use public lands.  While we are focusing very narrowly on deer and elk, let us not forget the impacts grazing can have on fish, riparian habitats, and other large scale factors like the introduction and spread of invasive species (noxious weeds etc.) and diseases...wild sheep? Hoof Rot?

Lots to consider.

Grazing as a Public Good

Rangeland science backs up Hoch’s contention. Studies in numerous states show that conservation grazing can as much as double plant diversity in an area—it not only prevents overgrazing but the cattle’s manure and urine helps recharge the soil’s biology. Hoch and other habitat experts working in western Minnesota have observed how grazing has increased native plant communities by knocking back invasive cool season plants like Kentucky bluegrass and smooth brome. Such invasives can blanket the land with a homogeneous cover, which limits the diversity wildlife such as deer, waterfowl, shorebirds and grassland songbirds require. Such grasses also tend to go dormant in hot weather and provide limited habitat and foraging areas for pollinators.

Cattle are also being used to thin out cattails and reed-canary grass around wetlands, providing the open areas many waterfowl prefer when keeping a lookout for predators. And controlled grazing of riparian areas is proving to be an effective way to stabilize areas along waterways and lakes.

The science has become so convincing that conservation groups such as the Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society have changed their once decidedly negative view of cattle and now see them as an effective habitat management tool.

http://landstewardshipproject.org/posts/627

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.150.html

That is interesting. Thank you.

[bearpaw]

It's not fair to compare wildife numbers in wilderness areas to other areas. Most, if not all, wilderness areas are wilderness because it's the most unproductive land and when this country was settled, nobody wanted it. It wasn't good for farming, grazing, or logging. Almost all of  the official wilderness areas in Washington state are high elevation, and made up of more rock than anything else. Of course those areas don't have a high density population of deer and elk. It's not due to a lack of cattle grazing in those areas! Obviously deer and elk are going to do better in areas with good soil where there is plenty to eat. And, coincidentally, that is also where domestic livestock does the best.

"You can do the same thing in each of the western states and it quickly becomes apparent that logging, proper grazing, farming, and even gas and oil development is very compatible with wildlife when done properly. "

I think it's a question of which came first. Do deer live on ground that is grazed because grazing made it better, or do cattle graze on land because it's richer in food than surrounding habitat, and therefore also attracks deer?

I can certainly further clarify by pointing out the many USFS lands that were once logged, mined, and grazed. The very same ground that held very few deer, moose, bear, and elk centuries ago became far more productive with multiple use during the last century, now that logging has been curtailed the very same ground once again does not hold as many elk, moose, bear, or deer as forests age and choke out growth on the forest floor.

Think about it, once the USFS quit most logging, grazing, and other multiple use activities, the herds in those areas diminished as forests matured! This is evident all over WA, ID, MT, and OR.

I think it's pretty proven, our herds are more robust on active multiple use lands. As has been demonstrated in many states in many specific management units, when you implement multiple use the herds increase and when you stop multiple use the herds decline! 

[wolfbait]

It's not fair to compare wildife numbers in wilderness areas to other areas. Most, if not all, wilderness areas are wilderness because it's the most unproductive land and when this country was settled, nobody wanted it. It wasn't good for farming, grazing, or logging. Almost all of  the official wilderness areas in Washington state are high elevation, and made up of more rock than anything else. Of course those areas don't have a high density population of deer and elk. It's not due to a lack of cattle grazing in those areas! Obviously deer and elk are going to do better in areas with good soil where there is plenty to eat. And, coincidentally, that is also where domestic livestock does the best.

"You can do the same thing in each of the western states and it quickly becomes apparent that logging, proper grazing, farming, and even gas and oil development is very compatible with wildlife when done properly. "

I think it's a question of which came first. Do deer live on ground that is grazed because grazing made it better, or do cattle graze on land because it's richer in food than surrounding habitat, and therefore also attracks deer?

I can certainly further clarify by pointing out the many USFS lands that were once logged, mined, and grazed. The very same ground that held very few deer, moose, bear, and elk centuries ago became far more productive with multiple use during the last century, now that logging has been curtailed the very same ground once again does not hold as many elk, moose, bear, or deer as forests age and choke out growth on the forest floor.

Think about it, once the USFS quit most logging, grazing, and other multiple use activities, the herds in those areas diminished as forests matured! This is evident all over WA, ID, MT, and OR.

I think it's pretty proven, our herds are more robust on active multiple use lands. As has been demonstrated in many states in many specific management units, when you implement multiple use the herds increase and when you stop multiple use the herds decline! 

Elk and Cattle Grazing Can Be Complementary

Elk Response to a 19-Year Exclusion of Cattle Grazing
Beth Burritt and Roger Banner

Authors are Extension Assistant Professor, beth.burritt@usu.edu (Burritt), and Extension Rangeland Specialist (Banner), Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University Extension, Logan, UT 84322, USA.


On the Ground

In 1990, cattle grazed private land in Utah's Book Cliff Mountains until late July. Elk in the area ate about 50% of the forage regrowth on this land from late July to mid-September.
This private land mentioned was sold in 1990 and managed for elk. At the same time cattle were permanently removed from the area.
By 2009, repeat photography showed that vegetation in the area had changed and was dominated by dense stands of mature vegetation and weeds. In 2009 there were no signs of elk, whereas in 1990 many elk and signs of elk were observed in the area.
Based on this study and many others, carefully managed cattle grazing can be a lost-cost method to improve forage quality for elk.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-12-00068.1

[Bob33]

I can certainly further clarify by pointing out the many USFS lands that were once logged, mined, and grazed. The very same ground that held very few deer, moose, bear, and elk centuries ago became far more productive with multiple use during the last century, now that logging has been curtailed the very same ground once again does not hold as many elk, moose, bear, or deer as forests age and choke out growth on the forest floor.

Think about it, once the USFS quit most logging, grazing, and other multiple use activities, the herds in those areas diminished as forests matured! This is evident all over WA, ID, MT, and OR.

It's easy to see that logging creates more productive habitat for most wildlife. It's harder to prove that cattle grazing improves habitat for deer and elk.

Personally, I think lumping them together overstates the value of grazing, and understates the value of logging.

[jasnt]

It's not fair to compare wildife numbers in wilderness areas to other areas. Most, if not all, wilderness areas are wilderness because it's the most unproductive land and when this country was settled, nobody wanted it. It wasn't good for farming, grazing, or logging. Almost all of  the official wilderness areas in Washington state are high elevation, and made up of more rock than anything else. Of course those areas don't have a high density population of deer and elk. It's not due to a lack of cattle grazing in those areas! Obviously deer and elk are going to do better in areas with good soil where there is plenty to eat. And, coincidentally, that is also where domestic livestock does the best.

"You can do the same thing in each of the western states and it quickly becomes apparent that logging, proper grazing, farming, and even gas and oil development is very compatible with wildlife when done properly. "

I think it's a question of which came first. Do deer live on ground that is grazed because grazing made it better, or do cattle graze on land because it's richer in food than surrounding habitat, and therefore also attracks deer?

I can certainly further clarify by pointing out the many USFS lands that were once logged, mined, and grazed. The very same ground that held very few deer, moose, bear, and elk centuries ago became far more productive with multiple use during the last century, now that logging has been curtailed the very same ground once again does not hold as many elk, moose, bear, or deer as forests age and choke out growth on the forest floor.

Think about it, once the USFS quit most logging, grazing, and other multiple use activities, the herds in those areas diminished as forests matured! This is evident all over WA, ID, MT, and OR.

I think it's pretty proven, our herds are more robust on active multiple use lands. As has been demonstrated in many states in many specific management units, when you implement multiple use the herds increase and when you stop multiple use the herds decline! 

   

[bobcat]

As Bob33 said, logging and cattle grazing are two entirely different things. I'm not sure why they're being lumped together. 

[Special T]

OK split them appart! and debate them... We still dont have nearly enough logging to create more "Edge" habitat!

[wolfbait]

I can certainly further clarify by pointing out the many USFS lands that were once logged, mined, and grazed. The very same ground that held very few deer, moose, bear, and elk centuries ago became far more productive with multiple use during the last century, now that logging has been curtailed the very same ground once again does not hold as many elk, moose, bear, or deer as forests age and choke out growth on the forest floor.

Think about it, once the USFS quit most logging, grazing, and other multiple use activities, the herds in those areas diminished as forests matured! This is evident all over WA, ID, MT, and OR.

It's easy to see that logging creates more productive habitat for most wildlife. It's harder to prove that cattle grazing improves habitat for deer and elk.

Personally, I think lumping them together overstates the value of grazing, and understates the value of logging.

Actually even though grazing and logging are to different processes that improve wildlife habitat they do go together. In many areas we logged, after the brush was piled and burned or in the cases of line logging with controlled burns, these areas were then seeded to grass for erosion control, wildlife and cattle grazing.

[bearpaw]

I can certainly further clarify by pointing out the many USFS lands that were once logged, mined, and grazed. The very same ground that held very few deer, moose, bear, and elk centuries ago became far more productive with multiple use during the last century, now that logging has been curtailed the very same ground once again does not hold as many elk, moose, bear, or deer as forests age and choke out growth on the forest floor.

Think about it, once the USFS quit most logging, grazing, and other multiple use activities, the herds in those areas diminished as forests matured! This is evident all over WA, ID, MT, and OR.

It's easy to see that logging creates more productive habitat for most wildlife. It's harder to prove that cattle grazing improves habitat for deer and elk.

Personally, I think lumping them together overstates the value of grazing, and understates the value of logging.

Actually even though grazing and logging are to different processes that improve wildlife habitat they do go together. In many areas we logged, after the brush was piled and burned or in the cases of line logging with controlled burns, these areas were then seeded to grass for erosion control, wildlife and cattle grazing.

In NE WA the two (grazing and logging) are almost synonymous. Areas that are logged are also grazed and vice versa. In some areas I understand that the two do not always go together. For example wolfbait posted info about the Book Cliffs. I have spent many days, weeks, and even months in the Book Cliffs and know it extremely well. I know three of the few landowners, as it is mostly public land. I think I know which piece of land they are describing which was sold and grazing removed because they thought that would make it better elk habitat. The areas where I see the most elk are all grazed areas. (There is little or no logging in the Books because there aren't many desirable species for logging.) I suppose there are areas in western WA that are logged and not grazed so I can see why some members from the wetside would think the two have nothing to do with each other.

[JimmyHoffa]

a lot of the logged area on the westside I think might be a little steep for cattle.  But make a riverside pasture and throw a few cows in it and it becomes an elk magnet.

[AspenBud]

I can certainly further clarify by pointing out the many USFS lands that were once logged, mined, and grazed. The very same ground that held very few deer, moose, bear, and elk centuries ago became far more productive with multiple use during the last century, now that logging has been curtailed the very same ground once again does not hold as many elk, moose, bear, or deer as forests age and choke out growth on the forest floor.

Think about it, once the USFS quit most logging, grazing, and other multiple use activities, the herds in those areas diminished as forests matured! This is evident all over WA, ID, MT, and OR.

It's easy to see that logging creates more productive habitat for most wildlife. It's harder to prove that cattle grazing improves habitat for deer and elk.

Personally, I think lumping them together overstates the value of grazing, and understates the value of logging.

Actually even though grazing and logging are to different processes that improve wildlife habitat they do go together. In many areas we logged, after the brush was piled and burned or in the cases of line logging with controlled burns, these areas were then seeded to grass for erosion control, wildlife and cattle grazing.

In NE WA the two (grazing and logging) are almost synonymous. Areas that are logged are also grazed and vice versa. In some areas I understand that the two do not always go together. For example wolfbait posted info about the Book Cliffs. I have spent many days, weeks, and even months in the Book Cliffs and know it extremely well. I know three of the few landowners, as it is mostly public land. I think I know which piece of land they are describing which was sold and grazing removed because they thought that would make it better elk habitat. The areas where I see the most elk are all grazed areas. (There is little or no logging in the Books because there aren't many desirable species for logging.) I suppose there are areas in western WA that are logged and not grazed so I can see why some members from the wetside would think the two have nothing to do with each other.

In all my time in western Washington I've never seen cows grazing on logged land. The same held true when I lived in Michigan (it may be different in the UP however, I don't know).

What I do know is I see a lot fewer deer here than I did back in the 80's and that decline has largely come with the logging restrictions that have been imposed over the years. When I was in MI the better areas to hunt were mixed age forest where logging was occurring in a regular rotation. The worst possible hunting I could find was in mature forest where the ground was effectively bare and the sun and rain had a hard time coming through, I've largely experienced the same thing here as well.

Grazing or no grazing, the lack of cutting is causing a lot of problems these days.

[KFhunter]

come over here, you'll see plenty of it.



grazing might well be a mute point, too much livestock losses to continue that practice for much longer.  Unfortunately this also curtails PRIVATE land grazing, more livestock looses have occurred on private lands than public in WA.  To me this is a loss of private property rights.

Without cattle I hope they do more slash and burn, but they like to spray chemicals now don't they.

[Special T]

With the Kinds of losses experienced in "Fee range" cattle I would expect that the Feed Lot business would be a much better financial move...

To some of you guys in the Know... How high are High fence operations that keep deer elk and Wolves out? How much is it to put the fencing in?

Will we see certain "Game" related issues go away because more  farmers fence and pen thier animals and grow the feed out side the wire?