Will cattle in the national
park protect open space?
By © Todd Wilkinson
I’ve got nothing against cows; truly, I don’t. I enjoy eating a good steak now and then, and I’ve relished the numerous friendly visits I’ve had with mom and pop ranching families in the West.
If I could, I’d probably have a little milk cow out back as a pet for the kids, though the ordinances in Bozeman prohibit it.
Despite all this bovinophilia, I’m dubious of the argument that having domestic livestock in Grand Teton National Park is an attraction tourists from around the world come to see.
I challenge the logic, espoused by a few, which asserts that grazing cattle in the national park is a necessary trade off for preserving open space in Jackson Hole—given the costs to Grand Teton’s physical landscape, the survival of rare native wildlife, and the impact on the pocket books of American citizens.
This spring [May 2004], the Jackson Hole Hereford Ranch (owned by Robert Gill, Elizabeth Lockhart and the Bruce Porter Trust) has applied to re-commence its cattle grazing operation for several hundred cow/calf pairs in Grand Teton following a brief sabbatical.
The primary question that park officials should be asking themselves on behalf of the PUBLIC INTEREST is what does the public get in return for helping to subsidize a private livestock operation?
In February 2001, Grand Teton officials and planners from Teton County completed a draft study on open space: “Grazing fees collected by the park do not cover the annual cost of the grazing program,” the study states. “In fiscal year 1999 the estimated cost of the grazing program was about $58,000. These costs include operation and maintenance of irrigation systems, maintenance of permanent fences and installation of temporary fences, range administration and resource protection measures, and program administration. Personnel costs, including seasonal employees, accounted for just over seventy five percent of the annual cost.”
The study goes on, and adds—[taxpayers who consider themselves fiscal conservatives take note]: “Excluded from the above costs are the implicit capital investments necessary to extend grazing on a long-term basis while simultaneously promoting natural resource protection. Investments in permanent fencing and irrigation systems have been deferred for several years in anticipation of reduced livestock grazing levels, resulting in a backlog of ONE MILLION DOLLARS in needs to be addressed if livestock grazing were to continue on a long-term basis. Once completed, the funded improvements MIGHT SLIGHTLY REDUCE annual operating costs for the grazing program."
The same year, 1999, that Grand Teton spent $58,000 to administer cattle grazing, the park collected $8,700 from grazing fees. So let us ruminate out loud, as citizens and neighbors:° What is the PUBLIC getting in return for allowing cattle to graze inside the national park?
° If the object is open space protection, is the Jackson Hole Hereford Ranch willing to make good on its commitment to preserving the pastoral character of the valley by placing a conservation easement on its private land as other courageous local ranching families have done?
° Or, is the public merely allowing the Hereford Ranch to bide its time, subsidizing grazing in the park, until the family principles make a bundle by developing its real estate?
°In these tough fiscal times for national parks, does it make sense to subsidize private grazing?
°If a federally protected grizzly or wolf preys on a Hereford Ranch cow inside the park, will those natural predators be destroyed?
° Which animals should be given management priority inside the park, cows or bears, wolves, pronghorn, bison, sage grouse and other native species?
°If the Hereford Ranch loses cattle to predators, does the operation expect to be compensated for its loss?
° Finally, just because Congress passed legislation extending grazing in the park, does that mean its beneficial to the larger public interest?Like many westerners, I have a sentimental soft spot for ranchers, particularly those who approach their relationship with the natural landscape reverentially, as an ongoing, never ending duty.
Let’s give those agrarians priority. Let’s hold them up as heroes in our community. Let’s learn from them. Let’s work together, through private-public partnerships which yield benefits in perpetuity.
Is this the kind of relationship the Hereford Ranch is seeking? Let it be the first essential question asked by the public, the national park and members of Congress.
Bozeman, Montana writer Todd Wilkinson, a former Jackson Holean, is a western correspondent for several national magazines. Reprinted with permission.