Submitted by JPAnalyst t3_z1rm34 in dataisbeautiful
sgigot t1_ixg0l4h wrote
Reply to comment by jayrocksd in [Bloomberg] Here’s How America Uses Its Land by JPAnalyst
The benefit/adverse effect of grazing livestock depends on the land. The prairies were well-adapted to handle and benefit from bison. Grazing in the desert takes a *long* time to recover from. I've been to Big Bend and Organ Pipe NM and both parks talk about trying to restore the land after overgrazing in the early 1900's. If they remove too much vegetation (or selectively eat certain species) it will have a negative effect - promote erosion, allow non-native invasives to move in, or shift the water.
jayrocksd t1_ixga1ou wrote
NPS generally doesn't allow grazing other than probably Capitol Reef which was made from existing BLM land with existing leases. Organ Pipe isn't a good example as the Sonoran Desert probably isn't a good candidate to reverse desertification and that ecoregion is important in itself.
When trying to reverse desertification, herd animals aren't the most important thing, stopping soil erosion is. Grazing animals can also be a negative, but if managed properly they can be a great positive. Ruminant animals are an important part of the ecosystem, whether they be bovine (including bison), ovine, caprine or deer. I strongly suggest you watch this Ted talk. It's certainly not settled science, as some will argue that the benefit is offset by the methane created by ruminant animals. I would argue that the methane production from the great bison herds of North America, which were also ruminant, didn't seem to be a problem, or we wouldn't call climate change man-made.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments