The Essential Aldo Leopold: Quotations and Commentaries

2. Range Ecology and Management: Open Thinking on the Range

2 RANGE ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT ~ Open Thinking on the Range Jack Ward Thomas In these quotations Aldo Leopold speaks to us from what might seem like a remote past. Yet, decades later, most of his words remain applicable . Little seems to have changed in the intervening years. We can recognize the same political realities, the same socioeconomic concerns, the same cultural conditions-inside and outside the land management agencies-and the same projection of professional hubris. And to this day we cannot bring ourselves to ask if, in the time frame of centuries, it is possible to graze arid and semiarid ecosystems without continued ecological deterioration of those systems. It is worth reflecting on Leopold's situation when he first confronted the issues he addresses in these passages. He was a Yale-trained forester from the upper Midwest, thrust into a Southwestern landscape where appropriate controls of livestock grazing were urgently needed. He and many other young Forest Service technicians were "fish out ofwater"technically and culturally. But for a budding conservation philosopher this was perhaps the most fortunate of circumstances. In the semiarid Southwest the effects of centuries of human exploitation were more immediately obvious than in wetter regions with shorter histories ofexploitation by Euro-Americans. These effects were most evident in the degraded condition of forest watersheds, in the widespread erosion, gullying, and deterioration of stream courses and associated riparian zones, all of which led the budding ecologist-philosopher to think at watershed scales. Having taken that first leap toward more inclusive thinking, he would finally emerge as a man trying to "think like a mountain." In this sense Leopold's experience in the Southwest provided the intellectual foundations for later insights into what we refer to today as "sustainable forestry" and "ecosystem management." At the same time, Leopold's initial unwillingness to consider whether grazing should continue or whether the new Forest Service technocrats could devise appropriate grazing schemes was likely rooted in professional hubris. His view may also have been influenced 20 Range Ecology and Management 21 by the fact that he married into one of the region's most influential Hispanic ranching families. But these are observations merely on Leopold's starting point. The quotations presented here reflect how he learned, observed, and formulated new concepts. In today's parlance they illustrate clearly the development of his capacity to think "outside the box." Even a cursory review of these quotations reveals a tension involving three general and recurring themes: first, that livestock grazing on semiarid ranges inevitably produced erosion, degradation of bottomlands, overall ecological deterioration , and outbreaks of range rodents; second, that "nobody advocates that we cease grazing";l and third, that grazing experts could devise and enforce schemes that would allow grazing to continue in what we would call today a sustainable fashion. In only one quote do we see past this fa<=ade when Leopold admits, "I sometimes wonder whether semiarid mountains can be grazed at all without ultimate deterioration."2 There are other passages here in which Leopold is not so forthcoming . He suggests, for example, that as late as 1935 the Forest Service grazing programs in the Southwest were "under technical administration free from politics."3 Really? In the same passage he implies that the inability to deal appropriately with abusive grazing was partially attributable to lack of courage. If the managers were free of politics, why did they need "courage" to deal with the problems? Was it true that Forest Service managers were free of political pressures? Was that the agency line? Or, more likely, was Leopold indulging in a bit ofwishful thinking? If in fact the Forest Service was free from political pressures regarding the grazing program at that time (which I doubt), it has certainly not been true for the past forty-two years of which I have firsthand knowledge . Holders of grazing permits on the National Forests-particularly in the Southwest-have more political "clout" than any other group with which the Forest Service deals on a regular basis. A simple administrative action on a single grazing allotment can and does bring elected and appointed officials to question the district ranger, the forest supervisor , and even the chief of the Forest Service and the secretary of agriculture about the matter. For decades political movements have arisen and abated in response to debates over grazing on public lands. As I write, serious moves are underway in the Congress to dramatically enhance permit holders' "rights" and influence over public land management. There are precious few management decisions regarding the public lands that are free from politics. Yet what Aldo Leopold observed in 1924 seems eerily prescient. Mter providing a litany of the problems associated with grazing in semiarid landscapes, he observes that the situation "does not call for a taboo upon grazing, but rather constitutes a challenge to the craftsmanship of our 22 Part 1. Conservation Science and Practice stockmen and the technical skills of grazing experts in devising controls that will work, and to the courage of our administrators in enforcing those controls in a manner fair both to the conflicting interests and to the community."4 As the wag once put it, "the more things change, the more they stay the same." I am tempted to close with that comment, but such would be premature . Change is underway and seems to be accelerating. Pertinent to these changes are Leopold's observation that "to keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering" and his full statement of a land ethic.5 These two expressions have come to fruition in, among other measures, the Endangered Species Act, whose stated purpose is to provide "a means whereby the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend may be conserved."6 Enforcement of the act, which is occurring piecemeal through the mechanism oflawsuits and appeals ofland use decisions, has forced, and will continue to force, significant and long overdue changes in grazing practices in the arid Southwest. Attention has focused first and foremost on the protection and recovery of riparian zone habitats for threatened aquatic and terrestrial species. These concerns are rapidly expanding to include upland conditions and the influence of grazing regimes and intensity. Unfortunately, these changes have too rarely reflected courage on the part of the federal land management and regulatory agencies. The will to confront threatened or endangered species issues has been instilled primarily through the insistence of the federal courts that our nation's laws are in fact to be obeyed. I do believe that our technical experts and stock raisers can do a far better job of managing grazing within the limits of the land. Their failure to do so has been the result more of economic, social, and political factors than the "lack of technical skill or ecological understanding." We can point to an increasing number of creative innovations and success stories in public land grazing. These, I believe, are harbingers of a better future for our rangelands. Why? It is becoming clear that if the public who owns the public lands does not approve, grazing on those lands will become more difficult, more complex, more expensive, more subject to uncertainty, and over time may even be eliminated. In the end, private use of the public lands will take place only with the sufferance of the owners-the American people as a whole. Full recognition of and the willingness to deal with the realities of politics and public opinion have led many graziers and public land managers to an epiphany of sorts. There is nothing like enlightened self-interest to bring about change. The politics surrounding these ongoing changes will be fierce in their intensity. Elected officials who consider graziers on the public lands an important constituency will have to supply funding, either from in- Range Ecology and Management 23 creased grazing fees or from the public purse. Many of those resources will go for the "artificial control works" deemed essential by Leopold7fencing , water developments, stream and riparian zone restoration, road management, and rehabilitation of upland ranges. Yet for those who seriously ponder such matters, the old unthinkable question will come again and again in the midnight quiet-whether semiarid mountains "can be grazed at all without ultimate deterioration ." I find myself, as Leopold reveals himself to be in these quotations, of two minds-schizophrenic if you will-on questions of public land grazing in semiarid areas. The political realities of the moment tell me that such grazing will continue. Professional hubris insists that we can, if allowed the leeway and the resources, conduct grazing operations on those lands in a sustainable fashion. However, experience over the centuries , in arid and semiarid lands around the earth, tells us that longterm grazing under such climatic conditions leads to deterioration. Therein lies the rub, and therein lies the challenge-the very same challenges that Leopold recognized and skirted over a half century ago. It seems likely that without steady improvements in range management and range conditions this question will be discussed with increasing intensity. As circumstances, demographics, laws, ecological understanding , economics, and public opinion continue to change, it is well to understand what has come before. No such examination will be considered complete ifit fails to trace the evolution ofAIdo Leopold's views on the ecology of the Southwestern rangelands and the effects there of human exploitation, and of livestock grazing in particular. Perhaps we have finally come to the moment when we can deal appropriately and honestly with these insights-insights that evolved and sharpened as Leopold matured as a conservationist, land manager, and philosopher in the Southwest. 24 Part l. Conservation Science and Practice The stockmen must recognize that the privilege ofgrazing use carries with it the obligation to minimize and control its effects !Jy more skilful and conservative methods. Leopold shortly after his arrival at the Apache National Forest in 1909. (Photo by Raymond E. Marsh. Courtesy AIdo Leopold Foundation) When foresters took charge of the National Forests in 1908 they were not slow to see that they were responsible for the regeneration and development of the Forest ranges. The fact that large areas were overgrazed was considered no reason for letting them remain so. The fact that selfish interests stood in the way of reorganization and progress was considered no obstacle against going ahead. The fact that nobody had ever heard of scientific range management was considered no reason for the continuance of an obsolete system. Forestry and Game Conservation (1918); RMG 53, ALS 75 It is ... a fact, at least in the Southwest, that in spite of range control, erosion continues on a serious scale. The truth of the matter is that (1) any system of grazing, no matter how conservative, induces erosion, (2) no system of range control, no matter how conservative, can be relied upon to stop erosion already started, and that (3) erosion can be con- RangeEcology and Management 25 trolled only by a proper system of grazing control, supplemented by artificial erosion control works. A Plea for Recognition ofArtificial Works in Forest Erosion Control Policy (1921) ... There has been a widespread assumption among foresters that [artificial erosion control] works are unnecessary and impracticable. I have even heard it said, by experts on watershed problems, that to admit the necessity of artificial control works would be admitting the failure of our range controlsystem. I take strong exception to any such viewpoint. Our function is not to prove the infallibility of our initial forest policies, but to conserve the Forests. A Plea for Recognition ofArtificial Works in Forest Erosion Control Policy (1921) Grazing means concentration of stock at ranch headquarters, watering places, salt grounds, driveways, shearing pens, roundup grounds, bed grounds, sunny sheltered spots on south hillsides, and cool breezy spots under shade. All of these concentrations mean some degree of trampling and the starting of trails along drainage lines. It is impossible to graze stock at all without causing these trampled spots and trails, and any trampled spot or trail may start local erosion. Any local erosion may spread, even through the most well preserved ground cover. Thousands of these incipient erosion spots exist on even the best regulated range. The stage is now set for a cloudburst. In the course of years, the cloudburst is bound to come. When it comes, the deeper soils begin to gully and the creek bottoms begin to go out. When the gullying and loss of bottom lands once starts, no system of range control, unaided by artificial works, can possibly check the process. A Plea for Recognition ofArtificial Works in Forest Erosion Control Policy (1921) We hear of "good grazing men." I never saw one, i.e., a man who possessed really deep penetration in both range and livestock. Many men seem to have an astounding knowledge of stock, and a few are really at home in range management, but I have never seen great capacity in both lines combined in one individual. A common case is the ranger who often possesses an almost uncanny "cow-sense" but knows nothing about range. Such a man can ride past a bunch of cattle and read their complete history for months past as well as their probable future movements and condition. But he can ride a piece of range for ten years without reading anything. Skill in Forestry ms. (c. 1922) 26 Part I. Conservation Science and Practice The tree rings show . .. that about every eleven years we have a drouth.... The point is that, if every eleven years we may expect a drouth, why not manage our ranges accordingly? This means either stocking them to only their drouth capacity, or arranging to move the stock or feed it when the drouth appears. But instead, we stock them to their normal capacity, and, when drouth comes, the stock eat up the range, ruin the watershed, ruin the stockman, wreck the banks, get credits from the treasury of the United States, and then die. And the silt of their dying moves on down into our reservoirs to someday dry up the irrigated valleysthe only live thing left! Some Fundamentals of Conservation in the Southwest (1923); RMG90-91 All our existing knowledge in forestry indicates very strongly that overgrazing has done far more damage to the Southwest than fires or cuttings , serious as the latter have been. Even the reproduction of forests has now been found to be impossible under some conditions without the careful regulation of grazing, whereas fire was formerly considered the only enemy. . . . A century offires without grazing did not spoil the Sapello [watershed ], but a decade of grazing without fires ruined it, as far as the water courses are concerned. Some Fundamentals of Conservation in the Southwest (1923); RMG92 Attainment of personal skill in the diagnosis ofwatershed problems and formulation of an effective watershed policy have made slow progress as compared with other lines of conservation work. It is hoped that this brief presentation ofwhat we know about the subject to date may stimulate more widespread and effective thinking and action. Watershed Handbook (1923) Brush ranges present a constant temptation to overgraze because the brush keeps the cattle alive long after both the grass and the watershed have been severely injured or destroyed. Stated in another way, the carrying capacity of the soil in brush country is often passed long before the starvation point is reached and the watershed damage checked by "die-offs." In no case is it the policy of the District to tolerate injury to the watershed because enough forage remains to support livestock. WatersliedHandbook (1923) Grazing is one of our most useful means of fire control, but it is dangerous if not used intelligently. We must avoid attaining reduction of fire Range Ecology and Management 27 hazard at the expense ofwatershed conservation. Intelligent use of grazing for fire control necessitates weighing the possible benefit to fire against the possible injury to watersheds. There is no blanket rule which will apply generally-it is a case of applying local skill and knowledge to local conditions. Watershed Handbook (1923) It is a conspicuous fact that we have many areas which bear evidence of having been burned over for centuries but which did not start to erode abnormally until they began to be grazed. Watershed Handbook (1923) Where land along a stream is in the hands ofvarious owners, [erosion] control works must be correlated for the stream as a whole, else there is danger that works installed by one owner will merely pass the trouble down the stream to his neighbor. Securing such correlation is an excellent field for leadership by Forest officers. If there is a Ranger Station on the stream, the Service should of course set a good example by controlling its own stream frontage. Watershed Handbook (1923) Never break sod or other natural watershed cover for a road or trail without a definite plan for preventing its forming or causing a new gully, or without considering the opportunities offered for checking existing erosion. Watershed Handbook (1923) So far little has been said about remedies, which are, of course, the thing really worth talking about. It has been asserted that erosion is the result of overgrazing, and that some local overgrazing is difficult to avoid, even on ranges that are not overstocked. But nobody advocates that we cease grazing. The situation does not call for a taboo upon grazing, but rather constitutes a challenge to the craftsmanship ofour stockmen and the technical skill of grazing experts in devising controls that will work, and to the courage of our administrators in enforcing those controls in a manner fair both to the conflicting interests and to the community. The stockmen must recognize that the privilege of grazing use carries with it the obligation to minimize and control its effects by more skilful and conservative methods. Pioneers and Gullies (1924); RMG 110, ALS 170 A diagnosis of the process of [rangeland] destruction gives the most reliable pointers as to the best process of prevention and cure. First and 28 Part I. Conservation Science and Practice foremost, a vigorous growth of grass on the watershed, and more especially on the watercourses, is essential. Pioneers and Gullies (1924); RMG lll, ALS 171 In the National forests a genuine and frequently successful effort has been made to prevent overgrazing by careful regulation, but on the public range outside of the forests no control of any kind is exercised. First come, first served. This lack of regulation causes each stockman to try to get as much stock as possible on the range at the earliest possible moment, resulting in continuous and disastrous overgrazing. Further procrastination in effecting a public-domain policy is unthinkable. Pioneers and Gullies (1924); RMG Ill, ALS 171 ... The acceptance of my theory as to the ecology of these brushfields carries with it the acceptance of the fact that at least in this region grass is a much more effective conserver of watersheds than foresters were at first willing to admit, and that grazing is the prime factor in destroying watershed values. Grass, Brush, Timber, and Fire in Southern Arizona (1924); RMG 118, ALS 185 Wholesale exclusion of grazing is neither skill nor administration, and should be used only as a last resort. The problem which faces us constitutes a challenge to our technical competency as foresters-a challenge we have hardly as yet answered, much less actually attempted to meet. We are dealing right now with a fraction of a cycle involving centuries . We can not obstruct or reverse the cycle, but we can bend it; in what degree remains to be shown. Grass, Brush, Timber, and Fire in Southern Arizona (1924); RMG ll9, ALS 187 ... Most forest and range lands are still used destructively, i.e. the primary "crop" is not yet a crop at all, but results from destructive exploitation of the remnants of a virgin resource. Cropping the game may help to bring about cropping the wood and grass. Report to the American Game Conference on an American Game Policy, Appendix (1930) The Excess Game Issue. Where the available range cannot be expanded there is nothing more harmful (short of extermination of a species) than to allow the indefinite continuance of overstocking, especially on arid lands. It is imperative that the non-scientific protectionist be made to realize that an overgrazed range may take longer to recover than a Range Ecology and Management 29 decimated herd of game; that excess population always ends in disease, starvation, or new enemies; and that prompt control is always more humane than delay. Report to the American Game Conference on an American Game Policy, Appendix (1930) The disappearance of brush cover through grazing is so gradual that even conservationists often do not realize it is taking place, nor do they realize that the process must in some way be halted or offset, before other conservation measures can become effective.... Its effects on all brush-loving wild life, game and non-game, is the most important single present fact mentioned in this report. All other conservation measures are at best but stop-gaps until this fundamental deterioration of environment is in some way checked. Report on a Game Survey ofthe North Central States (1931), 59-61 ... Overgrazing is more than mere lack of visible forage. It is rather a lack of vigorous roots of desirable forage plants. An area is overgrazed to the extent its palatable plants are thinned out or weakened in growing power. It takes more than a few good rains, or a temporary removal of livestock, to cure this thinning or weakening of palatable plants. In some cases it may take years of skillful range management to effect a cure; in others erosion has so drained and leached the soil that restoration is a matter of decades.... In the latter event restoration involves geological periods of time, and thus for human purposes must be dismissed as impossible . The Virgin Southwest (1933); RMG 178 Probably nowhere is there to be found a more important example of big-scale manipulation of the factors of productivity [affecting game] than the artificial development of watering places for livestock throughout the semi-arid ranges of the West.... This factor was controlled for the benefit of livestock rather than game, yet this very fact emphasizes rather than detracts from its significance.... Water for livestock has been developed on scores of millions of acres of western ranges. Most of that water is available to and used by game, wherever game has not been eliminated by overgrazing or overhunting. Game Management (1933), 299 The present prevalence of overgrazing and erosion, even on public forests, is a threat not merely to game, but to the whole idea that technical men know how to conserve land. Continued overgrazing of public properties which have been under technical administration free from 30 Part 1. Conservation Science and Practice politics can be ascribed only to two things: lack of courage, or lack of ecological perception (ability to "read country"). Of the two, the latter seems by far the most probable. Preliminary Report on Forestry and Game Management (1935) The public domain is in worse condition than any other part of the western range (namely, 67 per cent depleted, 95 per cent still depreciating , 2 per cent improving). It is suggested that other forms of use than livestock grazing must be found for much of it. Some of the most interesting and valuable forms of wildlife are found, in part, on the public domain.... It seems to the Committee that, to save something from the wreck of this vast area, there must be a swift and effective reduction of livestock to a point where the range can begin to improve. This alone would bring about a fundamental benefit to its remaining wildlife. Steady improve-, ment of the range and a considerable quantity of wildlife will go together . Second Report of [the Society of American Foresters] Game Policy Committee (1937) I sometimes wonder whether semi-arid mountains can be grazed at all without ultimate deterioration. I know of no arid region which has ever survived grazing through long periods of time, although I have seen individual ranches which seemed to hold out for shorter periods. The trouble is that where water is unevenly distributed and feed varies in quality, grazing usually means overgrazing. Conservationist in Mexico (1937); RMG 243, ALS 206-7 Today the honey-colored hills that flank the northwestern mountains derive their hue not from the rich and useful bunchgrass and wheatgrass which once covered them, but from the inferior cheat which has replaced these native grasses. The motorist who exclaims about the flowing contours that lead his eye upward to far summits is unaware of this substitution . It does not occur to him that hills, too, cover ruined complexions with ecological face powder. The cause of the substitution is overgrazing. When the too-great herds and flocks chewed and trampled the hide off the foothills, something had to cover the raw eroding earth. Cheat did. Cheat Takes Over (1941); ASCA 155-56 While the sportsmen and stockmen wrangle over who should move first in easing the burden on the winter range, cheat grass is leaving less and less winter range to wrangle about. Cheat Takes Over (1941); ASCA 157 RangeEcology and Management 31 Overgrazing is probably the basic cause of some or most outbreaks of range rodents, the rodents thriving on the weeds which replace the weakened grasses. This relationship is still conjectural, and it is significant that no rodent-control agency has, to my knowledge, started any research to verify or refute it. Still, if it is true, we may poison rodents till doomsday without effecting a cure. The only cure is range-restoration. What Is a Weed? (1943); RMG 309 The reader may well ask why the encroachment [of mesquite and cedar] has taken place. The authors tactfully avoid any answer, except to say that the invasion is "the direct result of heavy use." This seems to be a polite paraphrase for overgrazing. I prefer plain words for plain facts. Review of "Fighting the Mesquite and Cedar Invasion on Texas Ranges" (1944); ALS 214 ..."Paradise Ranch" ... lay tucked away on the far side ofa high peak, as any proper paradise should. Through its verdant meadows meandered a singing trout stream. A horse left for a month on this meadow waxed so fat that rain-water gathered in a pool on his back. Mter my first visit to Paradise Ranch I remarked to myself: what else could you call it? Despite several opportunities to do so, I have never returned to the White Mountain. I prefer not to see what tourists, roads, sawmills, and logging railroads have done for it, or to it. I hear young people, not yet born when I first rode out "on top," exclaim about it as a wonderful place. To this, with an unspoken mental reservation, I agree. On Top (1949); ASCA 128 ...