The Blue and the Green: A Cultural Ecological History of an Arizona Ranching Community PDF

The Blue and the Green Copyright 2016. University of Nevada Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. A Cultural Ecological History of an Arizona Ranching Community JACK STAU...

The Blue and the Green Copyright 2016. University of Nevada Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. A Cultural Ecological History of an Arizona Ranching Community JACK STAUDER UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA PRESS Reno & Las Vegas EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 6/26/2023 1:26 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY AN: 1197193 ; Jack Stauder.; The Blue and the Green : A Cultural Ecological History of an Arizona Ranching Community Account: s0000075.main.ehost 2 Copyright 2016. University of Nevada Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada 89557 USA www.unpress.nevada.edu Copyright © 2016 University of Nevada Press All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Cover Design by Rebecca Lown LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Name: Stauder, Jack, author. Title: The Blue and the green : a cultural ecological history of an Arizona ranching community / Jack Stauder. Description: Reno, Nevada : University of Nevada Press, | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015039991| ISBN 978-0-87417-995-8 (cloth : alk. paper) | ISBN 978-1-943859-11-5 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Ranching—Arizona—History. | Land use, Rural—Arizona—History. | Environmental policy—Arizona—History. Classification: LCC SF195.S73 2016 | DDC 636.2/0109791—dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015039991 EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 6/26/2023 1:26 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY AN: 1197193 ; Jack Stauder.; The Blue and the Green : A Cultural Ecological History of an Arizona Ranching Community Account: s0000075.main.ehost 3 Contents Maps Copyright 2016. University of Nevada Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. Preface Acknowledgments Introduction 1. “God’s Country”: The Blue Frontier 2. Cowboys, Farmers, and Others: The Early Blue Community 3. Blue Country Hurt: Overgrazing, Drought, and Flood 4. Aldo Leopold and Erosion on the Blue: “This Smiling Valley” Ruined? 5. Settlers into Permittees: Under the U.S. Forest Service 6. The Blue Community Evolves, 1920–1990 7. Creating Wilderness on the Blue 8. Returning the XXX Ranch to the Wild 9. Ranching and the Environmental Movement 10. A New Regulatory Regime: The 1995 NEPA Cuts on the Blue 11. The Ranchers Resist: Appealing the Cuts 12. In the Courts: The Las Cruces Trial 13. Cattle and Minnows: Fencing Off Riparian Areas 14. Cattle Versus Elk and Wolves 15. Blue Ranchers’ Stories—Part I 16. Blue Ranchers’ Stories—Part II EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 6/26/2023 1:27 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY AN: 1197193 ; Jack Stauder.; The Blue and the Green : A Cultural Ecological History of an Arizona Ranching Community Account: s0000075.main.ehost 4 17. Conclusion References About the Author Index EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:27 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 5 Introduction With the creation of the Forest Service in 1905... Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson wrote his now famous letter to Gifford Pinchot in which he laid down the dictum, “... and where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.” The [italicized] portion has not always been agreed upon by various groups or individuals outside the Forest Service.” Copyright 2016. University of Nevada Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. CLEO BARBARA COSPER COOR, Down on the Blue 1987:87. Ranchers also became the West’s most cherished self-image: the rugged individualist who battled wild beasts and wilder country to supply a nation with beef or wool. But there was a contradiction lurking within the symbolism. Because most of their animals ranged across public lands, the freedom of the ranchers was always contingent upon the actions of the government. THOMAS E. SHERIDAN, Arizona: A History 1995:306 UNTIL RECENTLY, the Blue was a ranching community with roots in the American frontier. So this historical account centers on ranching. No claim is made that the Blue was a typical ranching community of the western frontier—in various ways it differed, especially in its relatively late settlement. But the Blue is an interesting example of broader processes at work in American history: first, in its frontier experience, then in its experience with the U.S. Forest Service, and finally the changing values of a highly urbanized and regulated society at the beginning of the twenty-first century. With the U.S. government’s establishment of Forest Reserves and then the National Forests, early in the twentieth century, the U.S. Forest Service gained dominance over the rangelands of the Blue and thereby its ranch economy. Ranching on the Blue, and the destiny of the Blue community, became mingled with the actions of this federal agency. Similar developments occurred in many other ranching communities in the American West when federal lands were brought under government regulation. Appropriately, therefore, this book is entitled The Blue and the Green. “Green” can denote the Forest Service—it has been the color of most of their uniforms and vehicles (in fact, “Forest Service Green” is a recognized color among Ford pickup trucks). Green of course is the usual color of forests and trees. And, not by coincidence, green has emerged as the color symbolizing the natural environment itself, along with the environmental movement. Therefore the “Green” in the title happily appropriates these connotations, for this case study focuses on the ecological issues surrounding ranching, and especially on the consequences of governmental environmental policies and regulations applied on the Blue. While it delights in the historical particularities of the Blue, The Blue and the Green presents the Blue experience as an example of larger processes, still ongoing, that over many decades have transformed rural society in the West. Accordingly, this case study in cultural ecology is an effort to contribute to an understanding of Western social, political, and environmental history by documenting the local story of the particular people who have lived and worked in the Blue River watershed over the past century and more. Especially, it attempts to give a voice to these people. A brief summary of the book’s contents, by chapter, might be helpful to the reader. Chapters 1 and 2 cover the early history of the Blue, up to the 1910s. This history has been pulled together from many sources, including oral histories found not only in Down on the Blue but also in state archives and other library sources. Included also is an analysis of the 1900 Census. As far as I know, The Blue and the Green gives the fullest account of early Blue history that exists, just as it provides the only general history of the Blue. In addition, the first two chapters go beyond simply telling the story EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 6/26/2023 1:26 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY AN: 1197193 ; Jack Stauder.; The Blue and the Green : A Cultural Ecological History of an Arizona Ranching Community Account: s0000075.main.ehost 13 of the Blue: they attempt to put it into the context of the larger history of the American frontier and of ranching at the time. Chapters 3 and 4 continue the history of the Blue, focusing on crucial ecological and political developments. Overgrazing, erosion, drought, and flood occurred in the early 1900s on the Blue, coinciding with a push for government regulation of ranching by the newly created U.S. Forest Service. These chapters analyze the motives behind such developments, including the problem of the open range. They also discuss the significant role played on the Blue by the young Aldo Leopold, the early ecological visionary and wilderness advocate. Chapter 5 describes, often through oral history, the arrival of the Forest Service on the Blue, and the relationship of the agency to the ranchers through the 1930s. It discusses government policies and the conservationist philosophy of that time. Also, it traces the end of the open range and the fencing of allotments, work often carried out by the Civilian Conservation Corps of the New Deal. Chapter 6 covers the great changes that occurred—as elsewhere in America—in living standards on the Blue from the 1920s to the 1990s. The Blue was not isolated from technological progress. Rural home life and ranching were both transformed by modern communication and transportation, as well as new utilities, such as electricity, the telephone, and modern plumbing. The chapter analyzes the 1930 census and school records for social and demographic trends. The role of hunting in the Blue economy is described. The chapter charts the effect of World War II, the decline of the Blue population after the War, and gives a description of the social activities and institutions that have maintained community on the Blue. Chapter 7 documents and analyzes a new and significant environmental controversy on the Blue: should it be designated “wilderness” by law? The concept of wilderness, as developed by Aldo Leopold and the Forest Service, eventuated in the Wilderness Act of 1964. But while the Forest Service, with environmental activist support, has wanted a major part of the Blue watershed to be classified as wilderness, the Blue ranching community has been united and active up to the present in opposing such a designation. The chapter documents and explains their resistance and the reasoning on both sides of the controversy. Chapter 8 utilizes oral histories and interviews, but especially Forest Service records, to document how during the 1970s and 1980s the Forest Service succeeded in acquiring a historic ranch and other private holdings in the center of the proposed Blue wilderness and in ending cattle grazing there. This case demonstrates the role of ecological and economic factors, as well as Forest Service policies, in a struggle that played out between the ranchers and the federal agency. Chapter 9 provides an overview of the controversy over federal or public lands ranching in the modern West—a context necessary to understand the conflict on the Blue. It presents both the environmental activist case against ranching and the defense of ranching by its supporters. Also, it looks at a third force that has recently emerged, a sort of environmentalist-rancher alliance to use grazing for ecological benefits. Chapter 10 describes how activist environmental organizations successfully brought pressure on the Forest Service, first to limit logging, and then to limit grazing in the region. Drawing from Forest Service files and many interviews, it documents the long process of how the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was applied on the Blue, and the consequences. Chapter 11 continues the story, as aggrieved ranchers appealed their case first to public opinion, then through the upper levels of the Forest Service administration, and finally in the courts (chapter 12). These three chapters are needed to cover the long struggle over what came to be called colloquially “the NEPA cuts of 1995.” The ecological, economic, political, and legal issues were complex, but this critical episode marked a serious decline of cattle numbers on the Blue. Chapter 13 is devoted to a crucial ecological issue on the Blue, and elsewhere in the Southwest. Is the grazing of cattle compatible with the wellbeing of certain species of small fish? The issue highlights the role that the Endangered Species Act, and its interpretation by federal agencies, plays in the West. Chapter 14 features two other species, the Mexican gray wolf (endangered) and the Rocky Mountain elk (abundant). In different ways the wolf and the elk have become the bane of EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:26 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 14 ranchers not only on the Blue but also in the surrounding region. The two species’ conflicts with cattle raising, and the response of federal and state agencies, provide two other case studies of how ecological issues play out practically on the ground, on the Blue. Chapters 15 and 16 recount the history of the Blue from a different angle: they relate the personal histories of a selection of ranchers. The narratives are composed mostly of their own words in my interviews with them, supplemented by other sources. The Conclusion brings events up to date as of publication, and summarizes the main trends that will shape the future of ranching on the Blue. If there are conclusions or morals to be drawn, these should emerge from the history itself, and readers will be able to draw them. However, a recurring theme lies in what has been termed “historical irony”—when human actions have an effect contradictory to what was intended. Ecological assumptions and intentions in twentieth-century America are rich with such ironies. Various “ironies” are to be found in the pages that follow. I invite you to look for them. EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:26 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 15 8 Returning the XXX Ranch to the Wild Copyright 2016. University of Nevada Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. Many of us suspect that the long-range goal of the conservationists is to phase out the cattle operations on the wilderness areas, as soon as the wilderness areas are locked up. FRED FRITZ JR. (Dedera 1967) Down here at the Greenlee County Courthouse, they have a map, and that map was sent to the Board of Supervisors by John Bedell when he first came here [as head of Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest]. He came down to meet with them, and at that time my brother-in-law Jack Savios was a Supervisor, and Mr. Bedell said, “If there’s anything I can do to help you guys, let me know,” and my brother-in-law said, “I’d like to have a map from the Forest Service of all the private land in Greenlee County that the Forest Service wants to acquire.”... About a month later this map came... and if you want to see that map and all the land the Forest Service has marked in yellow, go down to the Greenlee County Courthouse in Clifton and ask Kay Gale, and she’ll show you the map with all the patented land the Forest Service wants to acquire. And our piece and the Marks’, and everybody on the upper Blue is on it, all of the old Three X is on it, a lot of the patented land on Eagle Creek is on it, the lower Blue is on it. DENNIS STACY (Dennis and Douglas Stacy 1998) THWARTED IN ITS PLANS to declare the Blue area official wilderness, the Forest Service nevertheless persisted in creating the conditions for wilderness, regardless of designation. The “corridor road” that Fred Fritz Jr. and Blue residents wanted reopened to connect all the ranches along the Blue was flatly rejected by the agency, and the County did not have the resources to go to court on the issue. However, the main method the Forest Service has used to create conditions for wilderness is to acquire when possible the inholdings of privately owned land and ranches within the Primitive Area, or adjacent to it and surrounded by National Forest land. This has been a public policy openly pursued. The Forest Service has criteria of what are “desirable lands” to acquire, and many of these potentially apply to most private land on the Blue: “valuable watershed lands without extensive improvements”; “high sediment producing lands”; “isolated tracts that do not have extensive improvements”; “abandoned homesteads”; “lands on which the resource management is being improperly handled”; and finally, “lands suitable and needed to supplement wildland, public-recreation developments” (USFS ca. 1980). As noted in the epigraph at the head of this chapter, the Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Supervisor was quite forthcoming in providing Greenlee County with a map of desired acquisitions. A letter accompanied it. Dear Ms. Ruger: Enclosed is a map that depicts the tracts of private land within the National Forest and Greenlee County that we consider desirable for acquisition for National Forest purposes. As you can see, nearly all in-holdings are considered desirable for National Forest uses. There are major advantages to the County of not having widely scattered private development within the National Forest with the attendant demands for County services that far exceed the tax revenue that they provide. The National Forest is a valuable county asset that can only become more valuable as time passes and populations increase. JOHN C. BEDELL, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Supervisor (letter sent June 8, 1990, together with the map, to Ms. A. Lynn Ruger, Greenlee County Economic Development Coordinator, Greenlee County EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 6/26/2023 1:25 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY AN: 1197193 ; Jack Stauder.; The Blue and the Green : A Cultural Ecological History of an Arizona Ranching Community Account: s0000075.main.ehost 70 Courthouse, Clifton, Arizona) The letter and the map are still kept in the courthouse by the county clerk to be shown to anyone who asks. The map’s existence is well known on the Blue because everyone’s private real estate there—or in Mr. Bedell’s words, “nearly all inholdings”—are marked on the map in yellow as “desirable for acquisition.” “All inholdings” means all settlement: all homes as well as the “base property” needed to ranch. If the Federal Government did acquire this land, there would no longer be private land for people to live on the Blue. There would be no Blue community. The fact that this map and accompanying letter exist confirms the Blue residents’ worst apprehensions about the future. They have it on paper: the way they see it, the U.S. government considers their elimination as a population “desirable.” Nearly ten years after the map was sent to the County, Mr. Bedell, still Apache-Sitgreaves Forest supervisor, confirmed again the policy in a letter to me (USFS 2000b). “The isolated tracts of land along the Blue and San Francisco Rivers are classified as desirable for acquisition through the land exchange program....” Although the words “isolated tracts” makes them seem marginal, these pieces of land are the once-homesteaded private properties on which the entire population of the Blue now lives. They are “isolated” because laws in the past limited private acquisition of public lands so that private property in ranching country was predestined to be small islands within a sea of federally owned land. In his letter, Mr. Bedell stressed that land acquisition has been “strictly voluntary based on private land owners,” that land acquisition has nothing to do with “our current efforts to balance livestock with capacity,” and that “it is in no way a part of our current NEPA decisions associated with Allotment Management....” By this he means the deep reductions of livestock enforced on many allotments in the 1990s, a process that will be described in subsequent chapters. Local ranchers believe that motives surrounding the would-be wilderness area help explain the Forest Service push since the late 1960s to reduce stocking numbers, retire permits, and buy out private holdings within or bordering the Primitive Area. But the Forest Service denies any connection between the wilderness issue, land acquisition, and agency decisions regulating the permittees’ allotments—how many cattle they can run, and when and where. Ranchers on the Blue, however, remain skeptical of this alleged lack of connection. They see the issues as linked and believe it all reflects one goal: to phase out ranching and maybe eventually even people living on the Blue. THE XXX FOR SALE—OR TRADE? The case of the Fritz XXX ranch is cited today on the Blue as the earliest evidence for the theory that ranching is to be “phased out,” in Fred Fritz Jr.’s words, in favor of wilderness. With the oldest ranch on the Blue, pioneered by his father, and himself a lifelong rancher, Fred Fritz Jr., as noted in chapter 7, was a community leader and influential in Arizona politics. But he and his wife had only one little girl, and she died at a very young age, and they were never able to have any other children, and there were no nephews or nieces or anybody who wanted the ranch, and when it came time that Freddie was up in his 70s and couldn’t run it anymore, there was nobody around to help, and there was nobody for him to give it to or will it to, and let them run it until the time came it was theirs.... I can remember how I felt that was the most heartbreaking thing I’d ever seen, watching Freddie have to go through this. I’d known him ever since I was a little tiny kid. (Mona Bunnel, a neighbor [Bunnel 1998]) The large “Sandrock” allotment of the XXX stretched into the heart of the Primitive Area, where it included the former allotments of two earlier ranches, the “Bell” and the “HU Bar.” Fritz owned the patented (private) lands of these two homesteads inside the Primitive area. Late in 1968, while the potential wilderness designation for the Blue was being considered, the Nature Conservancy approached the Forest Service about purchasing the Bell and HU Bar patented land, along with another nearby former homestead, the “Smith Place,” owned by a neighboring rancher, Herschel Downs. No one was living any longer on these three properties; they were abandoned homesteads. EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:25 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 71 The Forest Service usually has very limited funds to buy land; instead, it often trades land for land. To obtain inholdings or other land the agency wants, it will swap U.S. Forest holdings near urban areas, land valuable for development. Often these trades are accomplished through middlemen, and sometimes the third parties have been environmental groups, especially the Nature Conservancy. The latter specializes in buying private land to “save” it for conservation purposes. In some cases it administers the land itself, but often it trades the land it wants conserved to the federal government in return for other land it can sell for development to make money to buy still more land it wants to conserve. Who initiated the idea to buy the three old homesteads within the Primitive Area is unclear. But John T. Koen, Assistant Regional Forester in the Albuquerque office, responded by letter on January 10, 1969, to a Nature Conservancy inquiry by giving data about the Smith Place, Bell Ranch, and HU Bar Ranch, including estimated worth and the names of the owners. The three tracts of land to which you refer are all considered to be of high priority by the Apache National Forest and would rate among the top priority cases in the Region because they are within the exterior boundaries of the Blue Range Primitive Area. The lands are classified as desirable for acquisition and would be incorporated into the Blue Range Primitive Area Management Program if acquired. (USFS 1969a) Another letter on January 21, answering Nature Conservancy questions, admitted, We are not aware of any further details as to the personal feelings of the landowners with whom you will be dealing other than what you have already outlined. We do not know the financial status of the landowners.... We wish you success in your endeavor to acquire these lands for incorporation into the Blue Range Primitive Area. We certainly appreciate your interest in striving to help us place these lands in Federal ownership. (USFS 1969a) This attempted acquisition was unsuccessful, and the properties remained in the hands of Fritz and Downs. Probably Fred Fritz Jr., like other ranchers on the Blue, preferred to pass his ranch and allotment to another rancher, not to the Forest Service to be retired to wilderness. In the early 1970s Fritz, in his seventies and no longer feeling up to ranching, was looking for a prospective buyer. Any proposed sale would need to be discussed with the Forest Service, as they would have to approve transfer of the Sandrock allotment grazing permit that went with the XXX. Grazing permits to particular Forest Service allotments generally change hands along with the ownership of the private “base properties” to which they are connected. Allotments and the private property, while legally separable, are treated as a whole by the buyers, sellers, and lending banks, and the purchase price for a ranch will be greatly influenced by the number of cattle permitted on its allotment. So the terms of the new permit must be spelled out by the Forest Service before a purchase can occur. A formal discussion between a permittee and a Forest Service official is often summarized in a letter sent by the latter to the former. Sometimes the permittee is asked to sign a copy of the letter and return it; in any case, the summary goes into the Forest Service files. From these files, and copies of documents the permittee kept, we can gather an insight into the growing conflict between the Forest Service and the rancher in this case—a conflict that would be repeated on the Blue in future years. In November 1972, Clifton District Ranger Jerry A. Dieter wrote to confirm a recent discussion with Fritz. The letter contained some words that Fritz would not have liked to hear. I discussed with you the Suitability Standards that have been developed which deal with the soils, slope, vegetative cover and erosion. These standards will be applied to the Sandrock Allotment. The Sandrock is considered a marginal range land for yearlong grazing along with several other allotments with similar geology. There is a considerable amount of nonsuitable range land on the allotment, which was determined during the 1968 analysis. The suitability standards when applied to your allotment will no doubt increase the nonsuitable range. This, as you stated, would lead to a reduction in capacity and livestock numbers. I felt it imperative that these points be discussed with you before a prospective buyer be brought to the office to process transfer papers. (USFS 1972a) EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:25 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 72 While the summary is couched in the bland, bureaucratic, quasi-scientific terminology favored by the Forest Service, the discussion must have been bitter to the old rancher. To be told that the ranch that had been his home for seventy-seven years was considered “marginal range land,” much of it unsuitable for grazing, was to question what his life and that of his father had been about. And the ominous forewarning of a mandated reduction in livestock numbers would be the last thing Fritz wanted to hear as he searched for a buyer for his ranch. Ranger Dieter goes on to spell out how, while Fritz then had a permit for 542 head of cattle yearlong, 135 of those were based on temporary permits that might not be transferred to a new purchaser; also, how after further studies were made, the numbers might be reduced even lower. Then the ranger summarizes the rest of the meeting in diplomatic language that concedes Fritz’s adverse reaction at the meeting. You have had moderate success in operating the ranch as you felt it should be. It has taken you a life time to obtain the knowledge of the country in order to do this. A new buyer however, will not have the benefit of your experience to continue operating it the same way you have, and adjustments would have to be made, either in the system, numbers or both. You mentioned that this reduces a person’s incentive when they have only something like this to look forward to and felt that this would make it very difficult for you to sell the place. You stated that you did not agree with many of the Forest Service policies, that you were not satisfied with results of the analysis, and that you were pretty discouraged to see this happen after putting a life time of work into it. You felt that this was another step toward removing all grazing from public lands, either by total elimination or by making it economically unfeasible.... I explained again that I felt it important to talk with you about this before you sold because it would be discussed with the prospective buyer when the time came. (USFS 1972a) Fritz brought the issue to Ranger Dieter’s superior, the Apache National Forest Supervisor, Hallie L. Cox, who answered Fritz by letter in December 1972. Cox supported his ranger, citing 1963 and 1968 range analyses, indicating that of the 62,500 acres within the Sandrock Allotment, approximately one-half is forage producing and suitable for grazing. In relation to your term permit this would be about 5 acres per cow month, which is less acres per cow month than the stocking on several allotments in the Blue river area. (USFS 1972b) All indications were that the Forest Service had decided to reduce the number of cattle on the XXX on transfer to a new owner. A year later, in December 1973, the District Ranger met again with Fred Fritz Jr. and, in Dieter’s words, “asked if you would consider trading your private land holdings to the government, through a tri-partite land exchange.” Fritz could keep forty acres at his XXX ranch, the minimum base property needed for an allotment, but the Forest Service wanted the Bell and HU Bar properties lying in the Primitive Area. You would be able to realize a pretty good return from the land and still have the allotment to work as long as you feel you are able. During this time you might want to consider gradually phasing out your operation since lack of help will be an increasing problem. (USFS 1973) Fritz said he would “play it by ear” for a year or so and see what happened. He was feeling better and thought he could still work the ranch. A year later, in November 1974, the Forest Service increased the pressure on Fred Fritz Jr. at a meeting on his annual permittee plan for 1975. The issues that the Forest Service insists are never connected—land sales and stocking rates—nevertheless appear cheek by jowl in Ranger Dieter’s summarizing letter. I asked you if the Bell Place was still available for a land exchange. You indicated you have decided not to do anything with it at this time. You felt that because of the mining activity in the area that you would like to EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:25 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 73 keep the place, since the value could increase if minerals were found. I discussed the general findings of our study that was conducted in April of 1974. On the basis of the soils information we gathered, there is a little over 10,000 acres (10,400) out of the 62,670 acres in the allotment, that is suitable from a soils and watershed standpoint. We plan to start an intensive soil and hydrological study this coming spring which will give us more information about the needs of the watershed. As a result of our study I am not in a position to recommend a transfer of the permit in the event the need should develop. For the same reason, we cannot justify continuing the temporary permit past the end of the next year, December 31, 1975. You expressed your concern about the trend of grazing practices on public lands. You felt that you would be leaving the ranch in better condition than it was when you got it. I explained that we were not questioning this point. The problem being that you are looking at it from a standpoint of grazing and we have to look at it from a watershed standpoint. (USFS 1974) The Ranger and the rancher certainly had diverging perspectives. Fritz would never deny that overgrazing could hurt the land (see his words at the beginning of chapter 3). He had seen the damage early in the century when he was growing up. Therefore throughout his career he had supported the principle of Forest Service grazing regulation. It was a matter of self-interest for the rancher: overgrazing eventually would reduce the capacity of the land to produce healthier cows and more and heavier calves, and this would hurt the rancher. But Fritz knew his land better than anyone in the Forest Service, and to him it did not look overgrazed in the 1970s—in fact, he believed it had improved from earlier in the century. He was running many fewer head of cattle on the land than were run in the past, and he could see from their healthy condition that there was plenty of forage available. But what could he say when the Ranger started talking about “soils information” and hydrological studies and “the needs of the watershed”? Probably to him these were abstractions that made little sense. In any case, he was not in a position to argue with “studies.” In returning a copy of the Ranger’s letter with his signature, he added some bitter remarks saying how much he disagreed with the Ranger’s statements. At a loss for ecological arguments, he had to make the case in an area he did understand, economics. There is practically no other source of revenue to be derived from the land of Blue River except that from livestock grazing fees. The loss of this revenue will affect our school districts and the economy of our communities. You stymie any sale for our ranch. Your policy and study eliminates livestock grazing or reduces it to a point where we cannot financially operate. (signed) FRED B. FRITZ (USFS 1974) The Ranger’s statement that he could not recommend “a transfer of the permit” (for the same number of cattle Fritz was running) to a new owner was a serious threat. Fritz next appealed to the Region 3 (Southwest) headquarters of the Forest Service in Albuquerque. Copies of his letter are unavailable, but the files contain a long letter in reply from W.R. Fallis, Director, Range Management, beginning “Dear Freddie.” Fallis supports the Ranger and gives Fritz a short lecture on how drought and overgrazing can result in unsatisfactory range and watershed conditions leading to erosion and flooding. I know these points are not news to you, but they are mentioned only to emphasize the importance of stocking at conservative levels and employing a management system which provides periodic rest from grazing. This gives grazed plants the opportunity to recuperate and maintain themselves. If this is not done, deterioration tends to accelerate, especially in periods of deficient moisture. When this occurs, watershed, wildlife, wilderness and related resources all suffer. In reply to Fritz’s arguments from economics, Fallis states, “the economic losses associated with reduction of permitted livestock on the National Forests are serious. Nevertheless, management which does not meet the requirements of the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act, Environmental EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:25 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 74 Policy Act, Wilderness Act and related laws cannot be justified.” He is diplomatic: Your long tenure in the Blue River country and the investments you have made for range improvements are greatly appreciated. It has been said many times, Freddie, that only you could have successfully run livestock in that country. Through many years of hard work, you developed a successful operation, but changing interests and objectives of our society make it necessary to reevaluate some of our past management practices on public lands. As for future permitted numbers, Fallis reasserts the authority of the Forest Service to change them, and that the studies being conducted by Ranger Dieter will provide a basis from which to establish a tentative grazing capacity that will meet all resource needs. I believe you will agree that a thorough evaluation of resource needs, your economic interests and those of future operators is the only fair way to approach such matters. (USFS 1975) We can only surmise Fritz’s reaction to this bland assurance of “scientific management.” But he must have realized he was helpless in the face of the interpretation the Forest Service would put on their studies. The ultimate fate of his ranch was in the agency’s hands, which not only held practically all the cards but could change the rules of the game, citing laws, science, and “changing interests and objectives of our society.” Less than a century after Fritz’s father exulted in the “Land O’ Milk and Honey,” the Forest Service had declared it marginal, barely productive. THE XXX AND EROSION Some things might change, but some things remained the same. Erosion on the Blue, as we have seen, was not a new concern but one first raised by the Forest Service at the time of the big floods of 1904–06 (Hunt 1905). In fact, Fred Fritz’s XXX ranch was part of the “Clifton Addition” to the Apache National Forest after the floods, justified by the necessity for the Forest Service to do something about erosion and flooding on the Blue and San Francisco watersheds. But as discussed in chapters 3 and 4, erosion and flooding continued. There was the large flood of 1916, and as we have seen, Aldo Leopold was dismayed by the situation in 1922 (Leopold 1949). Leopold made many recommendations as to what could be done, most of which fell into two categories: grazing control and “artificial erosion control works” (Leopold 1921a). It is not clear from the records what was achieved in the case of the latter. In terms of grazing, the number of cattle on the land was radically reduced from earlier in the century (when the Fritz ranch alone had 2,500 cattle). And as recounted in chapter 5, grazing came to be better managed in ways that better protected the land. But the problem of erosion and flooding persisted. Records available in the Alpine and Clifton Ranger districts and Forest headquarters in Springerville often show concern with erosion. Analyses of soil conditions on allotments began in the late 1920s and were conducted sporadically over the subsequent decades up to the present. These analyses often did not have past baselines against which to measure—certainly any from earlier in the century. Carried out by different persons at different times—usually by range technicians, rarely by soil experts—the studies may reflect subjective differences in judgment in rating soil conditions and may therefore be difficult to compare or evaluate. In any case, what one finds in the records is a plethora of small verdicts that add up to no single conclusive picture—except, of course, that erosion remained a problem. To what degree recent livestock grazing was responsible for this situation remained unclear. From the 1930s up through the 1990s on the upper Blue, with a few exceptions, allotments tended to have soil conditions rated “fair”; “good” or “excellent”; and “stable” or trending upward. A series of “Erosion Problem Area Reports” done in late 1939 on a number of upper Blue allotments found some erosion connected with overgrazing, but put most erosion in “Class I”—the least serious. Some of the reports emphasized the steep nature of the country and that “an important cause EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:25 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 75 of erosion here is geology.” “Much of [the erosion] is normal geologic erosion” (USFS 1939a). “The principal cause of erosion in this area is geologic” (USFS 1939b). A Forest Ranger in 1970 commented on an allotment analysis, Soils in the Blue area are quite unstable, as evidenced by the tremendous floods which occur periodically on the Blue River.... In some areas the poor soil condition is a geological phenomenon over which man has little control. In other areas, the soils are deep and fertile, and overlying vegetation will respond to proper range management practices, thus stabilizing the soil. (USFS 1969b: Introduction) In this rugged country, such areas might alternate within the same allotment. And though many reports recognized the “erosive” character of much of the land, there were few recommendations for reduced grazing on particular pastures. If erosion conditions on the upper Blue for the most part looked tolerable to the Forest Service since the 1930s, evaluations of allotments on the lower Blue often were much more critical. Whether this difference reflects varying geological conditions is unclear. It might be partly due to the lower altitude and less rainfall of the lower Blue (the Fritz ranch, for example, had an average of fifteen inches a year, compared with twenty inches to the north). Another factor that may have made a difference is that most of the lower Blue is part of the Clifton Ranger District, while the upper Blue is under the Alpine District. In 1942 W.G. Koogler, a Senior Range Examiner, issued a general report on the “Watersheds of the Apache National Forest” in which he made the distinction that the orderly water yield and streamflow regulation afforded by the high forested and well grassed plateau bears striking contrast to conditions on the lower Blue and Frisco watersheds.... Notwithstanding local overgrazing and problem areas on the upper Blue, conditions there are relatively good compared to the lower basin. (USFS 1942:5, 20) The Fritz’s Sandrock allotment was on the lower Blue. Many comments citing soil erosion can be gleaned from Forest Service records on this allotment from 1929 up through the 1960s. Also, comments of forest officers who thought the allotment overstocked (USFS 1964; USFS 1968b; USFS 1983a). But what was the relationship between the two? Overgrazing certainly could cause soil erosion, but how much of the erosion evident was due to the grazing of XXX cattle after 1920? Would fewer livestock now mean less erosion? Some of the erosion may have been normal geologic erosion, as noted on the upper Blue. Still other erosion was due to the replacement of grasses by piñon, juniper, and other trees and shrubs inferior to grass in retarding erosion and retaining soil moisture. This process, discussed at the end of chapter 3, has been a historical trend throughout the Southwest. Initiated by the heavy overgrazing at the turn of the century, it was accelerated through most of the twentieth century by the Forest Service policy of fire suppression. The absence of periodic natural fires or fires set by Indians allowed the junipers and piñon pines to spread unchecked, and prevented the return of grass even without grazing (see USFS 1979). Juniper invasion was prominent throughout the Sandrock allotment (USFS 1964). They could be uprooted and destroyed using a bulldozer through practices called “chaining” and “pushing,” sometimes encouraged by the Forest Service. However, motorized equipment was prohibited in the Primitive Area, ironically preventing the restoration of the land there to natural conditions more closely resembling those before settlers and livestock. The 1973 meeting of Ranger Jerry Dieter and rancher Fritz dealt with this topic. As Dieter summarized in a letter, You [Fritz] felt that Congress would act on the reclassification of the Primitive Area by the end of 1974, and you wanted to see what would result. We talked about the need for juniper pushing and reseeding in areas such as the VT’s. The removal of the VT area from the Primitive Area would allow this kind of work to be done. (USFS 1973) If juniper and other erosive factors were difficult or impossible to control, the Forest Service could at least control grazing, especially by limiting the number of livestock. The Forest Service had EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:25 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 76 begun in November 1972 to indicate they would limit Fred Fritz’s livestock and soon began to cite as justification erosion along with hydrological and soil studies. Probably it is not coincidental that another significant flood involving the Blue had occurred throughout the Gila watershed in October 1972, putting pressure on the agency again to do something. A NEW OWNER: THE XXX AND AD BAR COMBINE In 1976, bowing to Forest Service demands, Fred Fritz entered into a “non-use agreement” to reduce his herd temporarily from 542 to 300 head for a six-year period to see how the land responded and to allow the Forest Service to do more range and soils analysis. “We also agreed that the new permittee would be expected to comply with the results of these studies” (USFS 1976). Within a few months, there was a new permittee. Fred Fritz had found as buyer a neighboring rancher, Sewall Goodwin. In 1973, Goodwin had bought the 6K6 Ranch, whose “AD Bar” allotment bordered the XXX Sandrock allotment to the north and was mostly within the Primitive Area. Like the Sandrock, the AD Bar was very rough country with poor soils, heavily invaded by juniper and piñon. In 1917 the allotment had a permit for 443 head of cattle and in 1930 393 head. But by 1951 it was reduced to 213 cattle yearlong, which was still the number when Goodwin bought the ranch. Economically, this was a very low number for a ranch, but combined with the reduced permit of 300 for the Sandrock, Goodwin considered his expanded ranch viable. The Forest Service was still trying to acquire the private parcels in the Primitive Area. In addition to the old Bell and HU Bar homesteads he bought from Fritz, Goodwin had acquired with the 6K6 another old homestead, the “Burns place,” also in the Primitive Area. But like Fritz, Goodwin was uninterested in parting with rare patented land. Goodwin had been warned before buying that range conditions on the Sandrock allotment were in bad condition but replied to the Forest Supervisor, I have carefully inspected the majority of the range improvements on the Sandrock allotment and have come to the conclusion that on the whole they are in a lot better shape than your letter indicates. We are also not interested in selling any of our patented land. (USFS 1976) Goodwin, in his 50s and an Arizona rancher all his life, thought the land was in better condition than the Forest Service was claiming—otherwise he would not have bought the ranch. But, as with Fritz, he was reading different natural signs than those read by the Forest Service. Ranger Dieter was warning Goodwin that ecological conditions were bad on both the Sandrock and AD Bar range, hinting ominously that the permitted number of cattle would probably have to be lowered, depending on the results of “ongoing studies.” In late 1977, Gary A. Davis, a wildlife biologist from Forest headquarters, began to survey the Sandrock allotment. After his first visits he conveyed conclusions to the District Ranger in language unusually indignant and pointed for a Forest Service memo. He deplored the erosion he found as well as the condition of the riparian habitat. “In my opinion... we are violating our own laws by allowing the continued degradation of the land. The problem of overgrazing by domestic livestock on the Sandrock Allotment has been recognized for many years.” He cited excerpts from agency documents on the allotment from 1929, 1933, 1934, and 1968, critical of range conditions and blaming overgrazing. The rhetoric of the modern environmentalist movement appears in his exhortation to the Ranger. It’s obvious that we as an organization have realized for 50 years that this allotment has been overstocked. We are committed by law to protect and enhance the growth and vigor of the vegetation that constitutes the life support system for earth’s living creatures, man included. Apparently this commitment has been given a low priority in this particular situation—expediency, temporary needs or financial difficulties experienced by permittees, and political pressures dictate land use policies. What’s best for the land and the American people as a whole has apparently been ignored. It was Davis’s “personal opinion that in order to alleviate the deplorable conditions existing on this EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:25 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 77 allotment, we need to eliminate grazing by domestic livestock”—six years in the future when the permit would be up for renewal (USFS 1977). But remarkably, two years later when Davis concluded his study, “Wildlife Habitat Analysis, AD Bar Allotment,” submitted in October 1979 to Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Headquarters, his tone had greatly changed. He was still critical of the Forest Service, but instead of advocating the elimination of grazing, he had an entirely new proposal. He found habitat conditions had deteriorated over the past century for most species, including cattle. His opening general observations were: “1. Soil loss due to lack of cover is obvious in many areas. 2. Encroachment by juniper and piñon trees has contributed, along with overgrazing, to a reduced forage base from the pre-white man era (supported by tree ring data collected)” (USFS 1979). Even with 213 cattle since 1951, the forage base (grass and browse species) was decreasing, and juniper and piñon trees were continuing to encroach, and he thought that the area was approaching a stable “climax condition” in which piñon and juniper woodland would dominate. This would not only lead to more erosion, but also provide less food for most wild species as well as for cattle. As for current grazing, this was not the nub of the problem. We, as an agency, are responsible for the loss of productivity on this Allotment. Our management objective ought to be to return the area to a productive successional stage which will support diverse viable populations of wildlife and an economic cattle operation. We have a responsibility, within the capability of the resources, to keep the permittee in business while we restore the Allotment.... Fire and rest are needed as management tools to once again create the productive successional stage which occurred prior to settlement by white man. We typically attempt to manage this country by building improvements, devising grazing systems which will improve distribution, or reducing numbers. We continue to attempt to manage a forage base which would probably continue to decline even if all the livestock were removed. Without fire as a tool, junipers and pinyons will continue to push the site towards climax. In my opinion our range improvement dollars should be spent restoring this area through burning followed by rest, rather than improving distribution to harvest the remainder of a declining forage resource. Rest-rotation systems will, in theory, maintain for a period of time the existing forage base but they cannot restore an area taken over by juniper or pinyon back to a productive grass site. (USFS 1979) In other words, the land could be restored through fire and a resting period to a condition nearer to that existing prior to the coming of white settlers. Fire could reverse the juniper and piñon invasion, and restore grass and other forage; this would benefit most wildlife and make it possible eventually to graze more cattle on the land. Both the land and the rancher would benefit. Davis’s proposal was bold. Perhaps too bold—it was not tried. Nor has the Forest Service been willing to use controlled burning as a tool elsewhere on the Blue to fight the juniper and piñon and restore earlier grassier conditions. The reasons for the Forest Service reluctance to set fires may lie partly in its historical role of “Smokey the Bear,” forest fire preventer. But the main reason today, as well as in 1979, may simply be bureaucratic caution: the risk of fire getting out of control. DECISION TIME FOR THE SANDROCK In 1982 the six-year study period was coming to an end, and the Forest Service continued on its path. As a last resort, Sewall Goodwin had his congressman make inquiries at Forest Service headquarters in Washington, D.C. The official reply stood behind the case developed in Clifton: “This allotment is in an area of extremely rough terrain. Approximately 83 percent is considered unsuitable range for grazing cattle.” Grazing areas had been overused, and studies indicated that “additional adjustments in stocking” were necessary, and “prospects at this time do not appear favorable for any substantial amount of grazing on the Sandrock Allotment” (USFS 1982a). On seeing a copy of this letter, Fred Fritz wrote a short note to Goodwin and his wife, commenting that, “This Forest report is most ridiculous, to say 83% of the XXX allotment is nonsuitable for grazing. What have those cows and I done all these years?” (Fritz 1982). In 1982 the new Forest Supervisor Nick McDonough met with Sewall Goodwin and his wife Lois, and laid out four options. “My first priority is, and continues to be, the purchase or exchange for private lands option.” The Forest Service was still intent on acquiring the inholdings in the EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:25 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 78 Primitive area. The other three options were 1. combining the Sandrock and AD Bar allotments in one management plan. “The grazing capacity would be 180-head yearlong, including the horses”—down from the combined 517 head of cattle when Goodwin had bought the ranches; 2. if the allotments were sold independently, the AD Bar would be reduced to 50 head yearlong (down from 217), and Sandrock to 120 (down from 300); 3. the two allotments could be combined but only for winter use: then 300 head might be permitted on the two. Goodwin would have to find other pastures for the stock in the summer. (USFS 1982b) Goodwin was backed into a corner. He could not make a living on the fewer than 180 head of cattle he would be allowed in renewing his permit. Nor could he borrow much from the bank on the basis of that permitted number to pay an extra large “balloon” payment due that year on the purchase price. He felt compelled to think of selling the private lands he owned, and of finding some way to rescue his capital from an untenable situation. In January 1983 Goodwin met with Greg L. Gray, Range Conservationist acting for the Clifton District. From the letter summarizing the meeting, we learn there was disagreement over how much the private land was worth. Also, You stated that you felt that the Forest Service was trying to get the private land; and if they couldn’t get it by buying, they were trying to force you to sell it by reducing your permit and therefore your income. We explained that the studies conducted on the allotment had nothing to do with the private land and the reductions indicated were in no way related to forcing you to sell your private land. (USFS 1983a) The Forest Service could always deny an intended connection, but Goodwin believed that in effect a connection existed. Furthermore, by cutting the combined allotments so sharply, the Forest Service was breaking with an established tradition in regard to its permittees. It was abandoning any commitment, as expressed above by Wildlife Biologist Gary Davis, “to keep the permittee in business.” Cuts in permits were not unprecedented, but cutting the number of livestock to where a family could not make a living? This was shocking in the history of the Forest Service on the Blue. Ranchers started protesting. The Greenlee County Supervisors called a special meeting where people could express their disquiet and anger. The retired Freddy Fritz commented that his former allotment had been called “Sandrock” for a reason: during his lifetime it had been bare in many places, with no vegetation—“it’ll never have much production.” He attributed damage to what had been done in the days of the open range, prior to his taking over the ranch in 1917. But he thought it could still run 300 cattle, as he had been doing the years before he sold out (USFS 1983b). Forest Supervisor McDonough presented the Forest Service case, recapitulating the history of overgrazing, erosion and flooding on the Blue. He conceded that the stock reductions the Forest Service wanted would “remove or very nearly remove these allotments from any serious consideration for further grazing.” Yet “[T]hese conclusions are not arbitrary or capricious but are based upon ‘state of the art’ soil, water and range analysis.” He concluded, It is my belief that the bulk of the flooding occurring on the Blue River at this time, is occurring within the depleted portions of the Sand Rock, AD Bar, Strayhorse, Alma Mesa, and Raspberry-KP allotments. Other allotments, though contributing initially to this problem, have now been corrected with stocking and management adjustments. (USFS 1983b) All five “problem allotments” were within the Primitive Area on the lower Blue. No one noted the irony that the Primitive Area thus held not the rangeland changed least by man, but the land changed most, by erosion and piñon-juniper invasion. “Primitive” here did not mean “pristine,” but rather its opposite. EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:25 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 79 The meeting ended in suggestions that participants meet again with the Arizona congressional delegation. McDonough mentioned that environmentalist groups like the Wilderness Society and the Wildlife Federation would also want to be involved (USFS 1983b). A story in the Clifton Copper Era newspaper on May 25, 1983, noted: “One veteran rancher seemed to sum up the cattlemen’s view of the situation, when he stated at the meeting, ‘Anyone that’s got enough guts to live up there and ranch in that rugged country, well, we should just leave him alone and let him do it.” More meetings occurred, but Goodwin finally caved in. He explained, The contract showed that there was a balloon payment [an extra large payment] on the sixth year. They knew about the payments, and the sixth year was when we started having trouble with the Forest Service. They cut our allotment from 300 to 120 head, and they said they were going to cut the 6K6 [the AD Bar allotment] from 200 to 50. I’ve got that in writing.... We could see the handwriting on the wall, and it’s kind of hard to fight the government.... I feel they used the cuts as a tool to get us out and to acquire that patented land. They were going to cut us so bad we couldn’t stay.... When you get one cow to the section [one square mile], that’s what it amounted to. So for some time there has been a Government program to buy up the Primitive Area. We didn’t sell the Three X’s to the government. We sold it to some investors, and they turned around and traded it to the Forest Service for some land in Show Low [next to developed land]. And we took the cattle off... It’s cute the way they do things, but they just squeeze you out. (Goodwin 2000) On December 20, 1983, a news release from the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest office announced that the Sandrock allotment would be closed to livestock grazing for an “indeterminate period” in order “to allow the watershed to recover through the natural increase of vegetation” (USFS 1983b). But the pressure on Blue permittees would not end with Fred Fritz and Sewall Goodwin. In the fall of 1988, officials from the Southwest Region offices of the Forest Service in Albuquerque took a field trip with Clifton District personnel over the allotments of the lower Blue. The field trip report, prepared by the Regional Ecologist Reggie Fletcher, found the erosion problems “immense” and trending downward in condition. Much of the District is extremely steep and rugged.... Soils are generally shallow.... Such soils are extremely difficult to improve when degraded. Erosion rates are extremely high with bedrock exposed in many areas.... The fragility of the range ecosystem in its ability to sustain livestock has been underestimated in virtually all of our actions. The permittees are now generally fearful the Forest Service will completely remove livestock from many allotments in the District.... For the remote and rugged ecosystems such as cover most of the Clifton Ranger District, productivity is low and erosion has been extreme. (USFS 1989a) The report recommends that the Forest service follow the example of the Sandrock allotment and “modify existing livestock use.” Much of the District is to be considered in the no capacity category and most of the rest will be difficult to manage for livestock. However, during the field trip all present agreed it was imperative we avoid talk of closing allotments to grazing. Our objective should be to balance capacity with permitted, and leave it to the permittee to decide on the economic suitability of permitted AUM numbers [animal units per month]. (USFS 1989a) In other words, the way to end grazing was not simply to stop it on an allotment—this would lead to political uproar. The smarter way to end grazing was to reduce the permitted number of cattle low enough to make a ranch economically unviable—as had happened in the Sandrock case. In the 1990s this strategy was indeed followed, selectively on allotments in the Clifton District, but wholesale in the Blue portion of the Alpine District. The rationale in the latter District, however, had little or nothing to do with erosion but instead was based on other ecological issues, primarily endangered species, and was partly in response to environmental activist lawsuits. In an ironic way, Aldo Leopold’s vision of a Blue Valley “ruined” economically was finally EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:25 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 80 coming true. The ranchers’ ruin had come not from floods or from trying to “possess” the wilderness, as Leopold had imagined. Their ruin had come from a political and cultural climate radically changed from that of Leopold’s day. The Forest Service was now less interested in protecting the livelihood of the ranchers who depended on it than in attempting to return the land, changed by man as it was, to a state nearer a wilderness ideal, an ideal pioneered by Leopold. Bowing to the claims of environmental activists, overgrazing—or any grazing—was seen as an obstacle to this wilderness goal. A few postscripts will complete the story of the XXX and 6K6, Sandrock, and AD Bar. Goodwin and his wife Lois eventually gave up and sold the 6K6 ranch to a real estate man from Phoenix. They bought a new ranch near Alma, New Mexico. Fred Fritz died in 1985 in Clifton, and over a thousand people attended his funeral. Tributes of love and respect were paid to the memory of this old cattleman and civic leader. But he died knowing his ranch was defunct. The Sandrock allotment has never been reopened to grazing. The XXX ranch buildings have fallen into disrepair. Hunters and others occasionally camp in them. Sewall and Lois Goodwin interested the Arizona State Parks in preserving the Fritz Ranch as well as the old Cosper Ranch as “National Register” historical sites. However, the Forest Service would not cooperate with these nominations, and the effort lapsed (Arizona State Parks 1990). Nowadays, residents on the Blue consider the Sandrock area a “dead area.” Not only are people and cattle missing, but also the deer. Goodwin comments, This ranch that we had on the Blue River, when we took all the cattle off, the wildlife went also, the deer left, because they liked to be with the cattle. The deer like the salt we leave for the cattle, and they feel protected from predators with cattle around. Mind you, this is 120 sections, and we had to take the cattle off piece by piece, because you had to drive the cattle a long ways—a rough ranch—so we camped out there with pack mules, and took these cattle off. As we took the cattle off—it took two years to get all the cattle off—we’d go back and look for tracks to see if the cattle were there. The wildlife would be gone. (Goodwin 2000) EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:25 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 81 9 Copyright 2016. University of Nevada Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. Ranching and the Environmental Movement Ranching as a land use, and ranchers as a culture, have been with us for more than four hundred years, dating back to the early Spanish colonists who struggled northward over El Paso del Norte and found a home for their livestock near present-day Espanola, New Mexico. Today, more so than at any time in its history, the ranching culture is under assault. If what I have presented in this essay is true—that ranch lands are compatible with our region’s natural heritage and that herbivory is a necessary ecological process in the restoration and maintenance of healthy rangelands—then why are ranchers and livestock grazing so vilified? Why have scores of environmental groups banded together for “a prompt end to public lands grazing”? RICHARD L. KNIGHT, “The Ecology of Ranching” (Knight 2002:135) TO UNDERSTAND THE FATE of the ranching on the Blue, one must consider it in the context of the raging controversy in the 1990s over ranching on federal or “public” lands in the West. Of course, the environmental effect of ranching on these lands was controversial even before the creation of the Forest Service; in fact, concern to protect land from overgrazing was one rationale for federal regulation of Western rangelands. Throughout the twentieth century there was no lack of criticism of grazing practices (Rowley 1985:27–35). Aldo Leopold, as we have seen, was one critic. From at least the 1930s, organized hunters, foresters, and wilderness advocates all chastised ranchers for their influence over National Forests grazing policy. In the 1940s the celebrated writer Bernard DeVoto wrote a series of columns in Harper’s attacking ranchers for the damaging effects of their livestock on the public lands. The foundation was laid early for polarized politics on the issue of public grazing, with organized ranchers versus the conservation movement. This polarization was merely augmented and more widely publicized by the growth of the environmental movement in the 1970s and 1980s (Merrill 2002:171, 192–93). The American conservation movement had always contained two tendencies, the utilitarian and the preservationist. Teddy Roosevelt and Forest Service head Gifford Pinchot represented the former: they wanted to use natural resources wisely to benefit the American people. The preservationist tendency, exemplified by the writer John Muir, differed sharply: its ideal was to preserve wild nature unspoiled as a good in itself, to not use it, except for spiritual or recreational purposes. This latter orientation was strengthened during the twentieth century by the many struggles of the conservation movement to create new national parks and an American wilderness system. A more extended expression of the preservationist philosophy gained currency in the 1980s throughout the environmentalist movement, expressed in the new concepts of “deep ecology” and “biocentrism.” Instead of seeing the natural environment as primarily a resource for humans (“anthropocentrism”), the deep ecology approach views all nature as having intrinsic worth, independent of human use. “Biocentric equality” means that “all things in the biosphere have an equal right to live and blossom and to reach their own individual forms of unfolding and self-realization within the larger Self-realization.” Of course, “in the process of living, all species use each other as food, shelter, etc.,” and humans must do this also, “but we should live with minimum rather than maximum impact on other species and on the Earth in general.” Other species, and also ecosystems, have as much moral stature as human beings (Devall and Sessions 1985:67–69). This philosophy, initially embraced by self-styled “radical environmentalists” like the “Earth First!” organization, came to influence the assumptions of many others in the contemporary environmental movement. Biocentrism has shaped the principles this movement wants enforced by law and regulation. To paraphrase Wallace Kaufman (Kaufman 1994:93), these principles are: (1) EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 6/26/2023 1:26 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY AN: 1197193 ; Jack Stauder.; The Blue and the Green : A Cultural Ecological History of an Arizona Ranching Community Account: s0000075.main.ehost 82 nature is good, if not sacred; (2) altering or destroying any part of nature is bad; (3) nature has a balance that humans always disrupt; therefore (4) humans should do as little as possible to change natural conditions in order to avoid damaging nature. To this way of thinking, cattle ranching in Western landscapes is not a problem to be solved through more regulation, new ranching methods, or fewer livestock: it is instead a practice that is unnatural and illegitimate in principle. (Commercial logging and mining are similarly regarded.) Predictably, by the early 1990s a political movement had emerged among environmentalists, initially in the Southwest, to rid all public lands of any livestock grazing. Certainly in its historical and sociological contexts this was a radical demand. The initial slogan was that the West should be “Cattle Free by ’93.” The movement attracted much publicity in the 1990s, especially in the West, but also nationally. A host of environmental groups and individuals have been involved, and an organization named “RangeNet” was founded in 2000 to link activists wanting to end all grazing on public lands. In 2001 the Sierra Club, through a membership ballot and with support from its leaders, joined the anti-grazing coalition, signaling the acceptance by much of mainstream environmentalism of what was originally an extreme idea. THE CASE AGAINST GRAZING The political movement to eliminate grazing on public lands has generated a large literature devoted to making its case, from Lynn Jacobs’s early, sprawling, self-published Waste of the West (1992) to a recent coffee-table tome, Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West (Wuerthner and Matteson 2002). Probably the most scholarly and comprehensive representative of this literature is Debra L. Donahue’s The Western Range Revisited: Removing Livestock from Public Lands to Conserve Native Biodiversity (1999). Donahue, who holds degrees in law and wildlife biology, cautions readers to beware of the claims and generalizations of range scientists and range managers. Attempting to use the literature to generalize about current range conditions, or about the individual contribution of livestock, is problematic not only because vegetation, soils, and climate vary widely and because historical and current land uses and thus disturbance factors differ. Investigators’ methods, objectives and predispositions can also dramatically influence results. Results may be portrayed carelessly or even misrepresented, intentionally or otherwise, by the investigators or others. Both academics and the land management agencies may be culpable.... The public lands grazing debate is fueled by misrepresentations or biased characterizations of range condition and other grazing-related issues.... Much of the range science and range management literature exhibits “a defensive tone” or an obvious pro-livestock production bent.... (Donahue 1999:61–62) Donahue may be correct, but by the same token we also cannot depend on the objectivity of anti-grazing literature. Generally, it combines frank advocacy with a tendency to “cherry-pick” data for anything that supports its cause and fits its outlook, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Donahue herself admits to an ideologically “biocentric” approach (1999:161), and her book may be seen as an advocate’s brief against livestock grazing on the federal lands. The purpose here, however, is not to judge the arguments put forth, but simply to summarize them for readers unfamiliar with the debate. Most of the environmentalist case against livestock centers on the need to protect natural values, in particular “biodiversity.” In Donahue’s words, her book argues that the strongest justification for removing livestock from, or at minimum reducing drastically their use of, [federal] lands is to restore, where possible, the natural ecological functions of rangeland ecosystems in order to protect and conserve their native biodiversity. (Donahue 1999:ix) Anti-grazing advocates have claimed that livestock grazing is the “most insidious and pervasive threat to biodiversity on rangelands” (Donahue 1999:115). The concept of biodiversity encompasses the gamut of life forms, from plants to insects to EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:26 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 83 vertebrates; activists charge that livestock grazing has negatively affected a great many species. They argue that the introduction of a “large-bodied herbivore” (the cow) has had dramatic effects on plant communities in all types of western North American habitat. By altering the environment, livestock has harmed a wide range of animals: fish, tortoise, snakes, lizards, birds, and small mammals (Fleischner 1994), including many endangered species. Because domestic cattle are an exotic species that evolved in the wetter, greener, and cooler environment of Europe, they are out of place in the drier, hotter areas of the American West. Cattle especially damage riparian areas and species because they tend to concentrate near streams and other sources of water and shade (Belsky 1999; Fleischner 1994:635; Oppenheimer 1996). In addition to claiming that livestock grazing has overall indirect negative effects on wildlife, anti-grazing activists are especially incensed at the deliberate killings of predator species by ranchers and government agencies in order to protect livestock. Mountain lions, black bears, and coyotes are targets today, as well as wolves and grizzlies in the past. Prairie dogs too have been objects of extermination, as they destroy grass and dig holes that break the legs of horses and cattle. Finally, livestock are accused of having spread diseases decimating native wildlife species (Wolff 1999:9). “The livestock industry is the last wildlife-genocide program in the United States,” one activist has stated. “All-out war is declared on a diversity of species every day to benefit a single industry” (Oppenheimer 1996). “The deleterious effects of livestock on native ecosystems are not limited to changes in species composition. Grazing also disrupts the fundamental ecosystem functions of nutrient cycling and succession,” conservation biologist Thomas Fleischner charges. Livestock destroy macrobiotic soil crusts in arid regions, disrupt ecological succession, alter the ecosystem structure, degrade soil stability, increase erosion and soil compaction, and harm water quality. They have aided the spread of other exotic species. The fencing and roads that go with ranching have also altered the rangeland ecology (Belsky 1999:10; Fleischner 1994:633; Freilich 2003). Knowing that in a political debate, they must appeal also to the “anthropocentric” in people, activists further argue that ranching is a less valuable use of the public lands for humans than hunting, recreation, and watershed conservation and that ranching in fact diminishes these other uses (Donahue 1999:280). Donahue argues that arid public rangelands, if retired from ranching, could be converted into biodiversity preserves, which would still be “used” to maintain “the protected area’s ability to provide ecological services.” Another “use” is the preservation of the area’s historic and prehistoric resources. Other, more obvious land uses that could be accommodated, and perhaps enhanced or expanded, include low-impact recreational activities, such as hiking, hunting, catch-and-release fishing, dispersed camping, water sports, spelunking, amateur archeology, and photography. These activities would bring dollars into the local area. In addition, reserves would provide field laboratories in which scientists could do much-needed research.... (Donahue 1999:189) Activists have also appealed to taxpayer sentiment by attacking governmental support for ranching as undeserved subsidies, even “welfare.” They have claimed the grazing fees charged ranchers are far lower than market value and do not cover government management and maintenance costs on federal rangeland. Also indicted are the costs of other federal programs that benefit ranching, such as “animal damage control” (predator killing) and emergency feed programs for livestock in drought conditions (Donahue 1999:278–79; Oppenheimer 1996; Wolff 1999). Anti-ranching advocates charge that these subsidies are being spent on what is only a marginal wing of the livestock industry, for public lands contribute only “a tiny fraction of national livestock production” (Donahue 1999:4). Two percent is the figure often seen in activist literature. But estimates vary. Wolff claims that “Federal public land in the eleven western states contributes only 3–5% of the beef produced annually in the U.S.” (Wolff 1999:2). Donahue cites a 1977 federal study of grazing fees that reported “about half of the livestock in the western states, or 9 percent of all U.S. livestock, spent some portion of the year on public lands,” and that “the national forests and BLM lands provided only 3 to 5 percent of the feed consumed by U.S. beef cattle in the 1970s.” She quotes also a 1994 calculation by the Department of Interior Rangeland Reform task force that all EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:26 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 84 federal lands provide “about 7 percent of beef cattle forage and about 2 percent of the total feed consumed by beef cattle in the 48 contiguous states” (Donahue 1999:252). The anti-grazing argument has minimized the economic importance of public lands ranching, while emphasizing its cost. Other socioeconomic aspects of ranching are also criticized. Sometimes anti-grazing literature assails ranchers as being privileged and wealthy, and cites examples of corporations and other wealthy entities that own ranches to take advantage of subsidies and tax benefits (Wolff 1999:2; Donahue 1999: 263–68). On the other hand, sometimes data are presented to show that many if not most ranches using federal land are such marginal operations that they are economically unsustainable. Their owners must take second jobs off the ranch, or they derive incomes elsewhere and are only “hobby ranchers.” In either case, such owners do not really depend for their livelihood on public lands—another reason to end grazing on these lands (Donahue 1999:263–268). Anti-grazing activists see a need to undermine the common rationale for continuing federal grazing policies, which is to preserve the family ranch and its associated way of life. On one hand, the critics stress that public land ranching is a marginal way of life dying out on its own. But on the other they attack the “way of life” argument itself, either by claiming “there is no single ranching ‘culture’ or way of life,” or by frontal attack “demythologizing the ranching mystique” (Donahue 1999:269; 88–113). Edward Abbey, the writer who inspired so many biocentric activists, led the way by portraying the cowboy not as the traditional Western hero close to nature, but instead as a vulgar, ruthlessly utilitarian, violent destroyer of nature (Abbey 1986). Not only is this opinion privately but widely held by anti-ranching activists but sometimes they argue it in public venues in an effort to de-romanticize the cowboy image. IN DEFENSE OF RANCHING Under attack, livestock grazing in the West has found defenders. This includes ranchers themselves, of course, and their rural neighbors but also range scientists and other specialists from the natural sciences, inside and outside of academia. Furthermore, during the 1990s, a whole segment of the conservation movement emerged to defend ranching against anti-grazing fundamentalism. Two recent works that best summarize the defense of ranching are Richard L. Knight et al., Ranching West of the 100th Meridian (2002), and Nathan F. Sayre, The New Ranch Handbook (2001). Ranchers espouse an anthropocentric worldview without apology. They believe that their work is good, because it provides valuable products—meat, wool, leather, and the hundreds of other livestock byproducts—that people want and need. A rural Western publication argues this view. Western rangelands are not usually suitable for crop production, and the plant roughages found on most rangelands cannot be digested by humans but are ideal for ruminants.... Sheep and cattle, therefore, convert otherwise wasted forage to food and fiber. And since the federal government owns about 170 million acres of the land used for grazing, productive use of these lands benefits ranchers, consumers, taxpayers.... ( Resource Roundup 2004) From the rancher’s perspective, our nation would be utterly perverse to forego the use of a renewable natural resource such as grass and other forage. This perspective is a common worldview in the ranching community, a view that goes all the way back to the settlement of the West and the ideas of John Locke: That which is not put to good use for the benefit of people is waste.... For the rancher, grass grazed is grass put to good use. For the environmentalist, missing grass is a sign of devastation. In general, then, it might be said that for many with an environmental perspective, to use a natural resource is to despoil it. For those with a more agricultural orientation, not to use it is a crime. (Huntsinger 2002:83) Ranchers and others with an “agricultural orientation” reject the charge that the public rangelands of the West are marginal to America’s needs. They scoff at the “2%” and “3%” statistics given out by environmental activists as misleading propaganda, taken from calculations at slaughter. EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:26 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 85 A pro-grazing advocate from Tucson explains, It has long been a contention of grazing foes that western grazing produces an insignificant amount of our total beef, and that we could easily get along without federal lands grazing. But the small production percentage is a myth. It just depends how you count. Western ranches generally do not produce cattle for the slaughter house, but instead raise yearlings to approximately 500 pounds by feeding them natural forage which is indigestible by humans. The yearlings are then shipped east to Midwestern farmers’ fields where these “solar energy converters” feeding on crop residue, fatten to about 800 pounds. From there they go to feedlots and gain another 300 pounds or so on corn, molasses, and crop residue. These cows get counted at the slaughter house and the Midwestern farmers get the credit for beef production. In reality, 20% of the nation’s beef is produced in the west. (DuHamel 2002) Recent Department of Agriculture statistics do show about 20% of all beef cattle, and a slightly higher percentage of calves, in the U.S. at any one time are grazing in the eleven Western states (USDA 2004) where altogether about half the rangeland is “public.” Not all of these cattle graze on public lands, but a breakdown between public and private is difficult to estimate due to the very nature of public lands ranching: public land must be combined with private land in a single ranching or agricultural operation. The estimate given by the Public Lands Council is that between three to five million of the six million beef cattle in the eleven Western states would depend for at least part of their lives on public rangeland (Public Lands Council 1999). This would mean ten to seventeen percent of American cattle have their origins on public-land ranches. The percentage of marketable lambs coming from public lands is much higher. Proponents of public land ranching also argue that because the West is a patchwork of state, federal and privately owned lands, ranchers require a mix of private and federal lands in order to survive. Rural economies depend heavily on public lands grazing—each dollar created from cattle and sheep sales generates another $5 to $6 in business activity. (People for the USA 1996) Further, ranching is the social and economic backbone of many small communities and rural counties throughout the mountain West, and “grazing on public land is essential to the viability of western ranching” (Sullins et al. 2002). Public land ranchers bridle at the charge they receive “welfare” from the government. They work hard to produce a commodity people want, and they sell it on the open market. They do not see the government as supporting or subsidizing them. On the contrary, they see the government and its regulations as an imposition. In what other business do you have the government as a partner with ultimate say over your operation? They view the government as a very demanding landlord. True, “the lease rate for grazing on private lands is higher than on public lands. But the difference is like renting a furnished apartment compared to an unfinished one” (People for the USA 1996). Public lands are also biologically less productive. Many of the lands in the public domain are those not taken by homesteaders a century ago because they are only marginally fertile. Ranchers with federal allotments are responsible for fencing, water development, maintenance, and miscellaneous cost that they would not be responsible for on privately-leased lands. Too, in contrast to privately-leased lands, public grazing lands are still open to the general public, and ranchers must contend with the problems... gates left open (necessitating time spent to gather livestock), and trash (hamburger wrappers, beverage cans, old tires, and refrigerators) that they must remove. Such problems can greatly increase a rancher’s cost of operation. (Resource Roundup 2004) Pro-grazing advocates also cite the few economic studies attempting to compare the costs of private and public forage, as showing a “wash” (Knize 1999:57). Economic arguments in the grazing controversy, however, are secondary. The attack on grazing has mainly been based on environmental concerns, on the alleged damage to the land and wildlife by livestock. Ranchers, including those on the Blue, have reacted strongly to these charges. Often they counter that they must keep their grazing land in good shape or it would cease to provide a living for them. Many will admit that sometimes poor ranching practices and overgrazing have damaged the EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:26 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 86 land, especially around the turn of the twentieth century when the range was unfenced and herds were too large. But ranchers today insist that they are good stewards of the land. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management data over the years do indicate general improvement of range conditions, but environmental groups have read the same data as an unsatisfactory portrayal (Knight et al. 2002:123; Knize 1999:5). A scientific panel set up by the National Academy of Sciences found it “impossible to determine if the range was stable, deteriorating or improving” (Marston 2002:6). All national assessments [of rangeland health] suffer from the lack of current, comprehensive, and statistically representative data obtained in the field. No data collected using the same methods over time or using a sampling design that enables aggregation of the data at the national level are available for assessing both federal and nonfederal rangelands. Many reports depend on the opinion and judgment of both field personnel and authors rather than on current data. The reports cited above attempted to combine these data into a national-level assessment of rangelands, but the results have been inconclusive. (National Research Council 1994:26, cited in Knight 2002:139) Whatever the damage done in the past to the range, defenders of grazing argue, the answer is better grazing practice. Ending grazing is not the answer. Removing all cows from public land might be advocated in the name of ecology, but it makes no ecological sense. “Nature does not run backwards” (DeBuys 1999). Simply taking the cows off does not result in the restoration of the land to some “pristine” state. In fact, over-resting the land can be as damaging as overgrazing (Savory 2002:158–60). Articles, with photographs, appear consistently in the pages of Range magazine (“The Cowboy Spirit on America’s Outback”) reporting on the benefits of controlled grazing and documenting the harm of no grazing (e.g., Dagget 2005a, b; Rich 2005a–c). A body of research shows that controlled grazing results in more ecological benefits than no grazing. This research is summarized in a report whose main author, Jerry Holechek, is recognized as one of the most prominent range scientists in the U.S. These studies provide evidence that controlled livestock grazing may enhance rangeland vegetation by altering plant succession, increasing plant diversity and productivity, and reducing plant mortality during drought.... [M]oderately grazed mid seral rangelands support a higher diversity of wildlife species than those lightly grazed in near climax condition. Riparian habitat improvement has occurred under carefully timed grazing at light to conservative intensities.... (Holechek et al. 2004:1) The key here is “controlled” livestock grazing. But the evidence used against grazing usually comes from studies of the effects of uncontrolled grazing. Holechek has commented, It’s an unethical and unscientific process. They use studies which document the effects of unmanaged livestock. That’s not an honest comparison at all. You see the same set of studies quoted over and over, whenever they attempt to close allotments. Which is very ironic, since most of those findings were eliminated from our review because of bad study designs and unscientific methodologies. When you add that to the fact that they’re not relevant at all unless the federally created grazing systems mandate unregulated livestock, it’s a pretty sordid business. (Rich 2004:1) A new ecological view is that rangeland grazing is not only natural but necessary. Rangelands are disturbance-prone ecosystems that evolved with natural regimes of fire and grazing.... Grass and shrubs coevolved with herbivores, species that grazed and browsed their new growth. The West has always been defined by large populations of herbivores, although their identity has changed over the centuries. Whether it was mastodons and sloths, or bison and pronghorn, or grasshoppers and rodents, grass and shrubs need the stimulating disturbance brought about by large, blunt-ended incisors clipping their aboveground biomass. Not to mention the dung and urine incorporated by hoof action facilitating more efficient nutrient cycling.... [W]e have learned that grazing by livestock, when appropriately done, contributes to the disturbance that rangelands require. Perhaps we have come to the point where we measure land health premised on disturbance rather than just rest and realize there is no “balance of nature” but only a “flux of nature.” (Knight 2002:127) EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:26 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 87 In this view, grazing managed correctly not only benefits the land, but also promotes biodiversity. Ranchers have always argued that their care of the range, particularly through the water sources they develop for their livestock, benefit wildlife and cite game statistics as proof (Resource Roundup 2004). But now some wildlife biologists are claiming that, as part of an “intermediate disturbance hypothesis,” disturbances such as grazing tend to create species diversity, and “recent research indicates that biodiversity is enhanced by intermediate grazing regimes....” (Huntsinger 2002:86; Sayre 2001:17; Starrs 2002:16). Does livestock grazing threaten or endanger certain species? Each instance must be analyzed in its specifics, but grazing defenders claim there are actually few cases where it can be demonstrated—as opposed to being hypothetically posited—that cattle or sheep are a menace to an endangered species. And sometimes such species are actually helped by the presence of cattle (Budd 2002:116). Numerous examples have been cited, especially in the past issues of Range magazine. One of the most striking and best-documented cases is that of the Southwestern willow flycatcher. Listed as an endangered subspecies, the largest population of these birds currently thrives on the private lands of the U Bar Ranch near Gila, New Mexico, in a riparian area that has historically been intensively farmed using irrigation and grazed by cattle. On Forest Service land upstream and downstream from the U Bar, where cattle have been excluded for a number of years, the flycatcher does not nest at all. (Yet perversely, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service have often used the presence of the bird, or of habitat it supposedly prefers, as a reason to reduce or eliminate cattle on federal allotments.) The U Bar also hosts large numbers of two endangered fish species, the Spike Dace and the Loach Minnow. Obviously, the anti-grazing assertion that cattle, by definition, threaten endangered species cannot be true (Ogilvie 1998; Sayre 2001:19, 85). THE RANCHER-ENVIRONMENTALIST ALLIANCE: “COWS VS. CONDOS” Numerous arguments can be made for the ecological benefits of livestock ranching, if managed correctly. However, what has led increasing numbers of Westerners with environmental concerns to rally in support of ranchers is their perception of the manifest alternative to the ranch: urban development. “The greatest threat to Western landscapes today is not livestock grazing but urbanization, a land use that feeds on the economic decline of ranching” (Sayre 2001:91). The argument is simple, and actual examples abound in the developing West. If environmentalist pressures cause federal agencies to cut the number of cattle allowed to graze federal allotments, ranching will become less and less viable as a livelihood for families that depend on public land. Forced to abandon ranching, and living in rural areas usually with few other economic possibilities, they will be compelled to sell their private land. This land, the heart of their ranch, typically was limited by the homesteading laws to an acreage too small to ranch successfully by itself. But the private land has great value if sold, as it will gravitate in the market towards lucrative real estate development, including subdivision into smaller properties (“ranchettes” or condominiums) much in demand in the New West. Thus, the slogan encapsulating this stark choice: “cows versus condos” (Sheridan 2001, 2007). Common sense would indicate, and recent research (Knight 2002) confirms, that pockets of housing development strewn over Western rangelands result in much greater, much more undesirable ecological change than any effects associated with ranching. The upshot of the biological changes associated with the conversion of ranch land to ranchettes is an altered natural heritage. In the years to come, as the West gradually transforms itself from rural ranches with low human densities to increasingly sprawl-riddled landscapes with more people, more dogs and cats, more cars and fences, more night lights perforating the once-black night sky, the rich natural diversity that once characterized the rural West will be altered forever. We will have more generalist species—those that thrive in association with humans—and fewer specialist species—those whose evolutionary histories failed to prepare them for our high population densities and our advanced technology.... (Knight 2002:135) EBSCOhost - printed on 6/26/2023 1:26 PM via NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 88 According to the Nature Conservancy, ranchers are now seen as a “last line of defense against developers; that if ranches fold, there will be no use for the land other than residential use, which breaks up the landscape and taxes the water supply” (Kiefer 2000). Put ranchers out of business and we lose open space, access, wildlife habitat, riparian corridors and scenic views to developers. Subdivisions and homes will spring up where these ranches once stood. With them will come noxious weeds, overgrazed horse paddocks, access restrictions, vegetation conversions and barriers to wildlife movement. (Bean-Dochnahl 2000:16). In the 1990s, as the conflict over public-land grazing grew, a section of the environmental movement recognized the probable result of forcing ranchers off the land and reacted to create a whole new approach to ranching. Paul Starrs, geographer and historian of ranching, summarizes the beginnings of this movement. To use or not to use: This was the polarization betwixt proponents and opponents of grazing.... The debate, Manichean in philosophical terms, is polarized black versus white and lodged against the detents of reason. The splits are extreme: full use or none, wild or domestic, city slickers or rural rubes, federal or private, small or big, endangered species or livestock. In these terms, the hand dealt is typically all-cows or no-cows. But this doesn’t need to be so—as a number of entirely reasonable conservation and biodiversity groups have made clear by meeting ranchers and other western interest groups more than halfway. Innovations are happening in support of not just biodiversity but also working landscapes and a central terrain of shared use and purpose.... There are intriguing programs designed to use the stewardship practices of ranchers—and the actions of grazing animals, and habitat they use, for part or all of th