grazing

Cattle Grazing on Public Lands

A recent negotiated settlement at Point Reyes National Seashore is the latest example of how controversy over cattle grazing on public land gets resolved. The polarity is typical. On one ‘side’ are ranchers, their families and workers, and the broad community that supports family farms, local agriculture, and organic or nowadays regenerative agriculture. On the other ‘side’ are environmentalists, pro-species, pro-clean water, pro-wildlife, and anti-livestock where there’s profit on public lands. The battle at Point Reyes is just one in this war across the U.S. West, and it has been going on for decades. At least at Point Reyes, the two sides don’t neatly align in the expected ways between the two mainstream political parties. Why did it get so bad at Point Reyes that legal action and tens of millions of dollars were needed to settle the issues? Could this kind of thing occur on public lands closer to the Monterey Bay? Let’s look closer to see.

The Vast Gulf

Conflicts with recreation, water quality concerns, and impacts on native plant and wildlife species are the issues most commonly raised when there are concerns about cattle grazing on public land. And, there is good science to support the value of carefully planned cattle grazing to reduce wildfire impacts while promoting native plant and wildlife conservation. In addition to these types of issues, there are pro- and anti- cattle advocates out there, on one hand in support of agriculture or cute critters for children to adore; and, on the other hand, wanting only native animals on the land or against meat eating, methane producing, and otherwise cruel corporate cattle corporations.

Radical Center

There are many of us who are experiencing the beauty of collaboration between livestock managers and conservationists: we are achieving more emergent success than anyone thought possible 30 years ago. Chief among these collaborative networks’ concerns has been development and sprawl…greed that replaces private ranches with housing tracks and shopping malls. In California, we also have shared concerns about the vitality of ranching economics, water provision, wildlife conservation, and catastrophic wildfire. Each of these issues has seen progress because a respectful, trusting network keeps showing up and working together. It takes everyone who has an interest in land management to create innovative solutions: ranchers, conservationists, researchers, land managers, regulatory agencies, community members, resource advisors and consultants, and planners. But, each of these groups has unique interests, different languages, different cultures. We get past these differences by gathering together and learning from one another in well planned, moderated dialogues. The Quivira Coalition is the first group I know to start these discussions, and many followed. The Central Coast Rangeland Coalition (CCRC) is working on this stuff locally, and is celebrating its 20th Anniversary in 2025. I copy here the pledge from the Quivira Coalitions website (link above), a pledge that mirrors the work of other groups like the CCRC:

“We pledge our efforts to form the `Radical Center’ where:

  • The ranching community accepts and aspires to a progressively higher standard of environmental performance;
  • The environmental community resolves to work constructively with the people who occupy and use the lands it would protect;
  • The personnel of federal and state land management agencies focus not on the defense of procedure but on the production of tangible results;
  • The research community strives to make their work more relevant to broader constituencies;
  • The land grant colleges return to their original charters, conducting and disseminating information in ways that benefit local landscapes and the communities that depend on them;
  • The consumer buys food that strengthens the bond between their own health and the health of the land;
  • The public recognizes and rewards those who maintain and improve the health of all land; and
  • All participants learn better how to share both authority and responsibility.”

Who is Showing Up, Who is Not

Where do you see cows on public land; how is it working; how do you know? There are cattle grazing on Midpeninsula Open Space, Santa Clara Open Space, State Parks (Pacheco State Park), BLM (Ft. Ord, Cotoni Coast Dairies), POST, and on City of Santa Cruz (Moore Creek, Arana Gulch). Of these, MidPen, POST, and Santa Clara regularly show up to work with the CCRC. I believe that these are the organizations that are most apt to succeed and least likely to end up in the terrible situations that Point Reyes has been experiencing. Why do some show up and not others? I suggest that the third bullet is as important as the next-to-last. It takes the oversight agency’s interest in results as well as the public’s engagement to nudge public land managers to the table.

My Experience at Point Reyes

I am an unabashed native plant conservationist, have researched and visited coastal prairie habitat at Point Reyes for many years, and I have NOT been impressed. Two of the science papers that got me started on my doctoral research were from Point Reyes. One told the story of a rare wildflower that was protected to death when cattle grazing was removed from its wetland habitat. The other illustrated how another rare wildflower thrived because of an appropriate cattle grazing regime. I consequently surveyed across fencelines at Point Reyes and found native annual wildflowers to be more diverse and abundant on the cattle grazed side of the fence, as opposed to the side where grazing had been excluded. In fact, I found the very rare San Francisco Owl’s clover in abundance in the areas with, and not so much without, cattle grazing. I have subsequently made many returns to Point Reyes to learn about what is going on. During one field trip, I found out that the cattle ranchers and park managers had only the most rudimentary ability to discuss a topic that had long been a priority, common interest: the encroachment of brush onto coastal prairies. During another excursion to explore the health of the very endangered Point Reyes Horkelia, park employees indicated that not only did they not have any data to share about the health of this species, but also that I was not permitted to monitor the species without extensive paperwork, even in areas open and easily accessible to the public (see bullet point above, re: defense of procedure vs. production of results). Nevertheless, I found that the cattle grazing regime had hammered nearly to obliteration this rare species whereas adjoining cattle excluded areas still had a few individuals which were on the verge of being obliterated by weeds, especially iceplant, a species that is relatively easy to eradicate in such instances where it is a local threat to an endangered species. I’m sure that the cattle rancher had no idea about rare species and I’m sure that the Park employees had never considered talking to the rancher about its conservation. In my experience, such communication is essential to improved success.

Where From Here?

Reflecting on my experience at Point Reyes, I am unsurprised about the recent outcome, but I am undeterred to keep helping the Central Coast Rangeland Coalition avoid such unproductive mayhem wherever possible. I challenge the Bureau of Land Management, State Parks, the City of Santa Cruz, and all other land stewardship entities to take the above pledge, joining constructive dialogues that demonstrate success at taking care of our lands. And, I challenge everyone else who is reading this to take the portion of the pledge that applies to you. I especially challenge the “Conservation Architects” (you know who you are)…including those who think highly of the concept of a “Great Park” designed to encompass most of the Santa Cruz Mountains…to now doubly consider what kind of baby-sitting federal agencies need to achieve conservation success. Together, we can make a difference. But, we need the principles of Radical Center-based collaboration (as articulated above) to take root in all places before we will see the harvests we so desperately need.

-this article originally published as part of the ongoing BrattonOnline news service, covering the Monterey Bay and Beyond. Subscribe and win!

Perennial Grasses and Healthy Soil

Isn’t it amazing how marketing pitches can formulate the foundations for societal dialogues? Somehow, forest management gets ridiculed with the phrase ‘raking the forest,’ aiding the politics of defunding the US Forest Service at a time when we really do need widespread restoration of prescribed fire…not raking, but effectively the same thing. And ‘forgiving student debt’ gets bandied about, helping to steer conversations/media away from the more difficult subjects of: better funding/better outcomes of public education; training young adults about contractual obligations and financial planning, and; regulating financial institutions to make student loans more affordable. I’m sure each area of human dialogue has its ‘short hand’ statements that one sector uses to manipulate others. The one I’m faced with currently is the jingo ‘healthy perennial grasses make for healthy soil.’ Let’s take a closer look at that phrase.

Bunchgrass Paradigm

Long ago, a preeminent ecologist traveled to California and ‘discovered’ something that formulated the basis of myriad dialogues continuing through today. Frederic Clements described ‘natural succession’ where nature transforms itself from one habitat to the next in a logical and predictable order. You may recall the diagram that still sticks with me where a pond becomes a marsh becomes a bog becomes a meadow becomes shrubland, culminating in the ‘climax’ community…a forest. In examining California’s grasslands, Dr. Clements found a patch of ‘pristine’ grassland, one of the few that had escaped the plow, along a railroad right of way. That ‘pristine’ grassland was dominated by a perennial bunchgrass, purple needlegrass: this, he said, was how all California’s grasslands should look. Many people still believe this. What about the hundreds of species of wildflowers, such as those cited by John Muir as creating carpets across the Central Valley, and those which provided food for indigenous peoples for generations? Those holding dear to the ‘bunchgrass paradigm’ will say those species grew only in between the bunchgrasses where weeds now proliferate.

Blue wild rye, a native perennial bunchgrass common to coastal prairies in California

Perennialization Bandwagon

As the bunchgrass paradigm has been perpetuating, another popular movement has been building, a desire to transform agriculture from annual plants into perennial plants with little to no tilling, which purportedly ‘destroys’ soil health. Despite being disproven as effective over and over again, farmers are still attempting to grow lettuce, carrots, broccoli, etc, on ground without tilling. Meanwhile, rangeland managers are repeating a similarly disproven hypothesis that all California grasslands would be better off if ‘restored’ to perennial grasses. Buoyed by science papers that suggest the importance of cattle grazing to help establish/maintain perennial grasses, livestock managers have found good use of this message to gain credibility and increase their land base.

The “Perennial Grasses Have Bigger Roots” Myth

Add the two previously described popular myths together and you encounter another emergent, oft-repeated myth: perennial grasses restore soil health because they have larger masses of roots (in comparison with annual grasses). Central to this popular misconception are comparison photos from the Midwest showing profiles of annual wheat versus perennial wheat including both above and below-ground portions of the plants.  The idea being promulgated is that larger root systems add more organic matter to the soil, break up soil compaction, and allow for better water infiltration. Most recently, proponents of this myth point out that the increased below ground organic matter of the larger rooted perennials means that more carbon is being sequestered, helping to address climate change.

California’s Grasslands: Not Naturally Perennial

California is mostly a Mediterranean state with a long history of ecological disturbance: grazing, fire, drought, inundation, etc. That ecological situation does not naturally produce widespread perennial grass dominated prairies. Even where there are perennial grasses present in a given area of prairie, they are rarely naturally ubiquitous: species seem specific to soils, steepness of slopes, wetness, nutrients, and so on. There are many more annual species than perennial, and many more wildflowers than grasses. Some of the most emblematic grasslands in California are naturally annual plant dominated, such as the wildflower-display rich Carizzo Plains, the rolling hills over the Altamont Pass, and the flower-filled savannahs of the southern, low-elevation Sierra Nevada. On the other hand, large swaths of the former wetlands of the Great Valley were probably once dominated in wide swaths by perennial rushes, sedges, and tall native, rhizomatous (not bunch) grasses.

California brome grass, a perennial bunchgrass common to California’s coastal prairies

Myths of the Perennial Life Form

Let’s examine the “Perennial Grasses Have Bigger Roots” myth for a moment. The most widespread native perennial grass in California is pine bluegrass, a diminutive grass that often has leaves a mere inch or two high and a flower stalk reaching a foot or so into the air. This species likes it hot, dry, and shady, growing in interior oak savannahs. With the first rains, it turns green, later sends up flower heads, and then dries by late spring. There is no reality in which this species has longer roots, or a bigger root system, than the often 4’ tall European oatgrass. Around here, that European oatgrass is more comparable to the perennial California brome grass. This brome, in some soils, alongside European oats similarly continues growing, flowering, and seeding well into summer. In wet areas, a common native perennial grass is meadow barley. Meadow barley is relatively small and short-lived, and goes dormant very early in the season, when it is replaced by the proliferate annual Italian ryegrass, which is larger by far. Most people surveying for perennial bunchgrasses have overlooked meadow barley altogether as it disappears so early in the season.

Yes, there are smaller annual grasses and larger perennial grasses, but my point is that the generality that ‘perennial grasses have bigger roots’ is untrue and not that useful as a generality.

Regenerative Ranching: Regenerating What?

Although the definition of ‘regenerative ranching’ is elusive, it seems most proponents are gravitating towards suggesting that they are ‘restoring healthy soil.’ The idea here is that soil has been in some way degraded and must be returned to its primeval state. Often, the soil degradation concern is ‘compaction.’ To restore soil health, proponents rely heavily on the myths described above overlaid with management hypotheses that using livestock can mimic evolutionary disturbance regimes last encountered with the Pleistocene megafauna, 10,000 years ago. Regenerative ranchers really believe that such approaches work and are full of anecdotes about what they’ve witnessed, though changes in soil health are notoriously slow and always soils-specific.

Compared to What?

I’m pleased that there is a conversation about how to best manage California’s prairies, but concerned about bandwagons, slogans, and misinformation. Humans are really, really good at pairwise comparisons, but their attraction to such must be tempered. Perennial vs. annual grasses: nonsensical! Livestock grazed vs. ungrazed: not helpful! We can try really hard or spend a lot of money trying to ‘restore’ soil health, but what are we restoring it to? There is the possibility for a great collaboration in this conversation. The USDA NRCS has a long-running research project that fits nicely: their ‘ecological site description’ project would do well to help define which sites are best compared with one another, based on soil types. When having these conversations, we would do well to have great respect for the state of the science, referencing a rich literature and how it does, or doesn’t pertain. And, in our pairwise comparison analysis, let’s always try to compare what we are doing, regenerative or otherwise, with someone else’s approach: what is working better, and why? We must always make these conversations very site-specific…variability across sites is the rule.

Meanwhile, beware of definition-less terms without a systematic third party certification program: ‘natural,’ ‘grassfed,’ or ‘regenerative’ labels hope to entice you to pay more, have higher respect, adhere to brand loyalty, or just plain ‘believe’ you are doing the right thing by supporting such verbiage. With this and other jingo-based bandwagons, let’s get a tad more critical so that we support what is worth supporting with greater clarity on WHY.

-this post originally appeared as part of Bruce Bratton’s weekly blog at BrattonOnline.com

Conservation Grazing for Grassland Diversity

My dissertation research, others’ research, and years of observation supports a need to seriously consider conservation grazing as a tool for managing the incredibly diverse grasslands of our region.

Ancient Habitat

We owe the existence of almost every bit of our local grasslands to human management of ecological disturbance regimes. For millions of years, California’s grasslands co-evolved with megafauna. 20,000 years ago, the prairies near Santa Cruz would have had herds of mastodon, mammoth, bison, ground sloth, elk, pronghorn, as well as camel and horse relatives. There were probably mastodon and mammoth trails the size of highways; like their African kin, these critters pushed over trees when drought or fire deprived them of ground-based forage.

The biomass of those herbivores was enough to evolve some amazing predators: saber tooth cats and their bigger kin the scimitar cats, a lion very close to the African lion, wolves, short-face bears, grizzly, jaguar, coyote and cougar.

About 15,000 years ago, most of that fauna disappeared, but the native peoples were stewarding the grasslands with frequent fire. Fires kept the grasslands open.

Without fire or grazing, our coastal grasslands turn to shrublands and the shrublands to forest.

Here Come the Shrubs!

First comes the coyote bush, seeds blown on the wind way downstream. First one shrub, then the next and soon there is more coyote bush than grass. As the shrubs thicken, coast live oaks take root, and they look like shrubs for years and years until they get wide enough that the deer can’t reach the center shoot, and that becomes a tree. Meanwhile, while oaks get shrubbier, here comes the poison oak and their injector friends the blackberry vines. Now, things are getting pretty impenetrable. After about 15 years, we start to see some more diversity: coffeeberry, California sage, sticky monkeyflower, honeysuckle, and others.

All the coastal prairies that aren’t on nearly pure, soil-less rock disappear to shrubs after 15-40 years. There are fencelines and aerial photos aplenty to show you this.

And Next…the Onset of Trees

As the shrub community closes in, the tree seedlings escape deer browse. Coast live oaks and Douglas fir rocket up from the shrub layer. Some toyon start getting tree like, too. Madrones join in.

Check out a mixed hardwood/Douglas fir forest next time you happen across one. Look at the understory and see if you can see shrub skeletons- they are likely there as a reminder from whence the trees emerged.

So, What’s the Problem? Trees are GOOD! “never enough trees….” (sigh)

California’s grasslands support the vast majority of rare plant and animal species. Globally, grasslands have been underappreciated for their diversity and function. California’s coastal prairies are one of the top ten most endangered habitats in the US. These grasslands have been converted to urban areas more than any other plant community. I bet we are still more likely to see grasslands developed locally than any other habitat type. For instance, the meadows at UC Santa Cruz are constantly under threat.

Many of your favorite wildlife species love our meadows. Deer, bobcat, fox, weasel, badger, eagle, hawk, kite, falcon, kestrel, owl, and tule elk are grassland friends. Predators require the vast production of mice, voles, gophers, and moles that grasslands create.

Even if wildlife aren’t your thing (and you’d be very much in the minority there), you might appreciate the functions that grasslands play. Grasslands can break up and cool down wildfires that would otherwise move catastrophically across the landscape. Prairies can be huge carbon and water sponges, soaking up climate change pollutants and soaking in precipitation to replenish groundwater and meter out rains to keep springs, creeks, and rivers flowing later in the season. Many folks love grasslands for recreation: picnics, lying in the sun, walking through them – all worthwhile and important activities. Grassland openness makes way for many of those favorite views. Masses of spring wildflowers create giddy laughter and attract tourists.

Oh, and grasslands raise cows…

Cows on the Prairie: Moooo!

After the genocide of native peoples, after they were driven from their ancestral homes, the prairies would have disappeared were it not for cows. The next era of grassland disturbance was the ranching era. Yes, there was a prohibition against fire. No, there were no limits to grazing. The early ranchers put way too many cows on the landscape: there were famous drought incidents early in California where dead cows littered the landscape. There is a huge slug of sediment in the Monterey Bay that is thought to be erosion from poor grazing and agricultural practices of that era.

Gradually, we have adapted cattle management to this variable climate. Our grasslands create beef. Some of that is grassfed/grass finished beef where cattle live their entire lives on open range. That beef production keeps the meadows open. And the fact that cows make money keeps the land grazed.

What About Elk?

Tule elk graze much like cows, and so would keep the meadows open if they could. Studies at Point Reyes where tule elk roam show that that species does about the same thing as cows: they keep open areas where grasses and wildflowers flourish.

The trouble is, we don’t have any elk on the Monterey Bay. Why not?

There are tule elk just east and south of us- not very far if they wanted to get here. But, apparently tule elk don’t like going through forest…not like their close relatives Roosevelt elk. At the same time, some of those tule elk already crossed 101 down along Coyote Creek in the Coyote Valley south of San Jose, but they turned back. Those elk are closer than the ones across 101 from Prunedale or the ones at Ft. Hunter Liggett. If the tule elk crossed the highway in Coyote Valley and kept going westward, they would have to get around a bunch of houses here and there, but they’d have lots of good grasslands across the east range of the Santa Cruz Mountains. If they tried going more west, there isn’t a good chance that they would find a grassy corridor to our coast side grasslands. So, it will be many, many years until we get elk, unless someone finds a way to truck them here, and then they’d have to want to stay. Meanwhile, let’s find a way to support the types of grassland management we need to keep our meadows open.

-this post originally a part of Bruce Bratton’s BrattonOnline.com web blog, where I often contribute columns of ecological information from the Monterey Bay region.