Wayne, I appreciate your concern about my so called "pawn-dom", but I assure you there are no problems there. My job is to INFORM, and the more tools I have in my toolbox, the better I can do so. Range management is a multifaceted issue. You do address several significant issues, but there is certainly more to the story than that. I would hope both sides of the argument take a step back and address the dynamics of the natural sciences, and the contributions of various anthropogenic forces. -JD
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > David, > > Thanks for your remarks and thoughts. As I said in my postscript, the post > was written in my Op-Ed style, not in my usual Ecolog post style. Sorry to > hear about the intentional and expensive intrusion of pines into oak woodland > by THE AUTHORITIES. > > As to my post, a careful reading will reveal my uncertainty about the > "sage-grouse" project and my qualification regarding the presumptive good > intentions of the author of the post which gave rise to my comments. It is > all about ISSUES, not personalities. > > WT > > "The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual > discipline." --Raymond M. Gilmore > > "Nine-tenths of the hell being raised in the world is well-intentioned." > --Anonymous > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Burg > To: Wayne Tyson > Cc: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:19 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology and Range Management Compatible? Re: > [ECOLOG-L] tree encroachment models > > > Wayne, I think you must have flunked your Dale Carnegie course. Which is > just one of the many things I like about your thinking, my fellow cynical > curmudgeon. You make many good points. The very concept "range" is a self > serving rancher construct, isn't it? > > Your example of the Oregon juniper removal project is something seen > frequently, in my experience. Even where there is some kernel of good > thought, like maintaining some former landscape-level vegetation pattern, the > execution is often foolish. And often such plans just happen to result in > lots of spending by agencies and contractors. Here in NYC the parks > department has an idea of preserving "diversity". So they have, at great > expense, been creating pine plantations in one of the rarest relict oak > woodlands in the country. See Reed Noss's fine old article "Do We Really > Want Diversity" on misuse of that concept by foresters. I mention this > because it may be comparable with what is being done for sage grouse. > > I do not think that it is wrong to try to figure out how we can preserve as > much nature as we can while also making accomodations for people. And while > there is no substitute for field work, it does no good, Wayne, to dump on > those who want to use modeling and other quantitative tools. > > But there is a problem with what Malthus calls the "insensible bias", where > we see the universe through the lense of human "need". A raging problem now > in "Nature Protection", particularly with concepts of "productivity" of > forests, grasslands, hoofed mammals, fish, etc. And then there always seems > to be some special interest that looks to jump on a bandwagon and twist it to > their own benefit. Is sage grouse protection another example of that? The > fuzzy term "Land Health" would seem to be very susceptible to such twisting. > > It could be argued that North America has not been "natural" since the > die-off of the mega fauna. I would try to give Jessa Davis the benefit of > the doubt and hope she (he?) is mindful of the trickiness of the issues you > raise, Wayne. > > David Burg > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ecolog: > > > > Now I've heard everything! Models? Models? We don't need no stinkin' > MODELS! (Paraphrased from the great old movie, The Treasure of Sierra Madre, > one of the earliest attempts to illustrate environmental responsibility) > > > > What we need is to get out on the "range" (a bogus concept for most of > the Great Basin [GB]), which is a romanticized Hollywood-cowboy notion > anyway, and LOOK at what's ACTUALLY happening and has been happening since > the arrival of the hoofed locusts in the 19th century. THEN, if need be, go > back to the air-conditioned offices and crunch some numbers. > > > > The trees wouldn't BE encroaching if it weren't for livestock, and the > ecosystems would be at maximum potential productivity, including plenty of > healthful animal protein like pronghorns and elk and, in places, bison > instead of cattle and other livestock that did not evolve under GB conditions. > > > > It was huge herds of cattle that caused the mesquite "invasions" in Texas > and beyond, cattle that caused the "invasions" of juniper or "cedar" > elsewhere in the west, not to mention cheatgrass and other alien species that > have reduced GB and other ecosystems to far below their original > productivity. This "range management" is not ecology, not even "applied" > ecology, it is simply propping up a lousy idea that is so entrenched that we > will never get rid of it. > > > > All over The West, huge amounts of our tax money has been squandered on > chaining, cutting, and poisoning trees (including pinyons) under the > unwarranted assumption that they were "stealing" water and nutrients from the > grasses. I thought the yahoos in the pockets of "ranchers" (I'm all for small > locally-owned ranches, but not for the non-resident-owned corporate landlords > who are interested only in money and to hell with the future) were a thing of > the past, and that now the government "management" agencies had some > ecologists and biologists in them that would not perpetuate this kind of > "Alice in Wonderland" myth that the GB is primarily for cows and that > indigenous species are "invading" and thus degrading the "range." Balderdash! > > > > I went to see the "experiment" in "controlling" the "invasion of junipers > at Steen's mountain in SE Oregon a few years ago. Their little propaganda > signs, while admitting the fact that great herds of livestock (sheep and > cattle primarily) had been brought in the last couple of centuries, but did > not admit that the proliferation of junipers had anything to do with said the > true invasion of cattle and sheep. They did some field trials, not > experiments, where they used different methods to "control" the juniper > "invasion." They cut down big junipers that were perhaps a couple of hundred > years old when the livestock first arrived, not just the little ones that had > actually invaded, which could have not been "invaders" themselves, thus > cutting down badly needed "stock shade," instead of thinning out some of the > "offending" seedlings that sprang up in response to the pulverizing of the > soil and much of the ecosystem, including the cryptobiotic soil crust > fraction of the ecosystem that was in equilibrium, including sage grouse, > before the devastating disturbance that favored the proliferation of > junipers, to wit, the cow-burning of the West. The Great Plains is another > story. > > > > This has been a blatant opinion piece, and were it not for the inability > of the present-day newspapers to separate the sheep from the goats, the wheat > from the chaff, I would send it to one of them as I sometimes did in the last > century (and the early 21st), but they are so inundated with submittals today > that one has a snowballs chance in hell of getting published, much less > getting paid like it was in the "old days." > > > > WT > > PS: I have no way of knowing for sure, but I would like to know, > intentionally or unintentionally, whether or not the sage grouse program > might be a surrogate subterfuge for sucking up more dollars for "range > improvement" for corporate ranching. I presume that Jessa is > well-intentioned, but she could be a pawn for the corporate interests, which > can be very clever in manipulating the public, including "environmentalists." > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jessa Davis" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:58 PM > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] tree encroachment models > > > > All, > I was wondering if anyone has done any serious modelling of tree > encroachment? Specifically pinyon-juniper in the Great Basin. I am > testing > out models/tools for encroachment on rangelands in conjunction with sage > grouse habitat restoration. LandFIRE has been tossed out there, and > there's > been some toying with in house methods. The higher the resolution, the > better. If anyone has any suggestions, they would be greatly > appreciated! > Thanks, > JD > > -- > Jessa Davis > Land Health Assessment Project Lead > Ely District > The Great Basin Institute > 702.606.5483 (cell) > 775.289.1968 (desk) > > "Be the change you want to see in the world." - Gandhi > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2641/5694 - Release Date: 03/21/13 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2641/5698 - Release Date: 03/23/13 -- J.C. Davis "Be the change you want to see in the world." - Gandhi
