Post Race!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, I can see how that critique may apply in the case of some species of animal that root around and tear up the ground like wild boars, but cows, really? I can only envision them gently grazing on grass and only causing any problem in areas where the soil cannot support their weight, and they probably wouldn't be too happy staying in conditions hazardous to their balance anyway and would naturally prefer to move to firmer pastures. Also how does their grazing kill fish and make it easier for invasive species to move in?

If your image of cows is a nice green field, picture cows in a desert, as that's what we have. You can't have all that many cows per square KM, because there isn't all that much forage, but there is enough to sustain cows. The soil is fairly fragile, as a single car track across a desert can take decades to fade away (the wagon tracks from the Oregon Trail are still visible where development hasn't wiped them out). So, the hoofprints of cattle will remain for years. Their pies last at least a year, and probably a couple years, too, but they dry out thoroughly, and can probably be used as firewood (it is used in some places).

Streams in this environment are the major location of water, so along streams are the only places where vegetation grows thick and green year round. Trees only grow along the banks of permanent streams, too. The vegetation shades and cools the water, while the streams form undercut banks. Both the vegetation and the undercut banks provide shade and cover for fish, while keeping the water temperatures cool enough for the fish to survive. Once cows get to the stream, they trample and consume the vegetation on the banks. If that was brief, it would be survivable, but unfenced banks are destroyed in short order. All the vegetation goes away, the banks cave in, the water temperature rises, and sedimentation increases. This suffocates the fish, destroys redds, and heats the water to the point where fish can't live there anymore.

One of the biggest challenges we face are getting ranchers to fence off streams so that cows can't get near them. The fact that salmon and steelhead are endangered has made it more urgent, but also somewhat more possible in areas where those species spawn. Generally, ranchers are pretty supportive once they see how much nicer the streams become once fenced, and we've gotten lots of them on board. It's not all that cheap to build cow-proof fences, though, so it's hard to get ranchers to do that on their own. They don't often have huge profit margins. Still, there are lots of fenced off areas around water on public lands grazing, and the water that is protected is dramatically better quality than the water that isn't fenced off.

[Witis]

If your image of cows is a nice green field, picture cows in a desert, as that's what we have. You can't have all that many cows per square KM, because there isn't all that much forage, but there is enough to sustain cows. The soil is fairly fragile, as a single car track across a desert can take decades to fade away (the wagon tracks from the Oregon Trail are still visible where development hasn't wiped them out). So, the hoofprints of cattle will remain for years. Their pies last at least a year, and probably a couple years, too, but they dry out thoroughly, and can probably be used as firewood (it is used in some places).

Some farmers power their entire milking operations from the methane generated from cow dung.

Streams in this environment are the major location of water, so along streams are the only places where vegetation grows thick and green year round. Trees only grow along the banks of permanent streams, too. The vegetation shades and cools the water, while the streams form undercut banks. Both the vegetation and the undercut banks provide shade and cover for fish, while keeping the water temperatures cool enough for the fish to survive. Once cows get to the stream, they trample and consume the vegetation on the banks. If that was brief, it would be survivable, but unfenced banks are destroyed in short order. All the vegetation goes away, the banks cave in, the water temperature rises, and sedimentation increases. This suffocates the fish, destroys redds, and heats the water to the point where fish can't live there anymore.

Fish need shade? Not in the ocean. If they do there must be underwater plants and even shade from underwater overhangs that can provide the fish with the relief they need. Also I highly doubt that cows kill the trees along the banks and they probably only eat some of the species of plants that grow by the streams. Also there has always been animal life, even in the desert, and such animals have to drink a certain amount of water every day to survive meaning that river banks always have to endure some degree of animal traffic every day. As a result I still find it difficult to believe that cows are somehow the river bank vandals that you make them out to be. Don't they tend to use the same watering spots/holes to drink from on a regular basis leaving most of the river bank untouched?

One of the biggest challenges we face are getting ranchers to fence off streams so that cows can't get near them. The fact that salmon and steelhead are endangered has made it more urgent, but also somewhat more possible in areas where those species spawn.

It's not the cows, I ate all the salmon. =)

Generally, ranchers are pretty supportive once they see how much nicer the streams become once fenced, and we've gotten lots of them on board. It's not all that cheap to build cow-proof fences, though, so it's hard to get ranchers to do that on their own. They don't often have huge profit margins. Still, there are lots of fenced off areas around water on public lands grazing, and the water that is protected is dramatically better quality than the water that isn't fenced off.

Fencing is expensive, an eyesore, and can even put humans off. If the cows aren't getting their water from the streams where do they get a nice cool drink from in the desert?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Some farmers power their entire milking operations from the methane generated from cow dung.


Fish need shade? Not in the ocean. If they do there must be underwater plants and even shade from underwater overhangs that can provide the fish with the relief they need.

They don't need shade for the reasons we need shade. We use shade as relief from the sun, but lots of light doesn't penetrate all that far into water, and heat gets absorbed pretty quickly. What shade does for the fish is keeps the water cooler, which is what keeps the fish cooler. There is also a certain amount of protection from predators, but that often depends on how the vegetation is arranged. In the ocean, the fish can always move around, and the heating from the sun has a different impact.

On the other hand, underwater vegetation does provide cover for lots of fish, so they do use it, though it isn't quite the same thing.

Also I highly doubt that cows kill the trees along the banks and they probably only eat some of the species of plants that grow by the streams.

A single cow is unlikely to kill a tree. They don't eat them, and they don't kick them into kindling, or anything like that. Lots of cows in an area can trample the banks to the point that the roots of the tree get damaged, or the cows could rub against them until they wear off the bark, but neither of those is all that common. What the cows tend to do is wipe out any new shoots and any brush. A mature tree can take it, young trees die, so as the old trees die from whatever reason, they are not replaced by new trees, and the result is a barrent stream bank.

Also there has always been animal life, even in the desert, and such animals have to drink a certain amount of water every day to survive meaning that river banks always have to endure some degree of animal traffic every day. As a result I still find it difficult to believe that cows are somehow the river bank vandals that you make them out to be. Don't they tend to use the same watering spots/holes to drink from on a regular basis leaving most of the river bank untouched?

You are right that there are animals in the desert. In our deserts, the largest animal is generally the antelope. There are places with some elk, places with deer, and places with bighorn sheep. In all cases, the numbers of animals are VERY rare. While crossing 60 miles of desert, I saw about 5 antelope. I also saw several hundred cows. That's roughly the ratio you find on grazing areas. So, while there are other animals, their density is around 1-3% that of grazing cows, and possibly even less. If cow populations were reduced to that of antelope, no rancher could afford it. After all, a cow is several times the size of an antelope, sheep, or deer. Only elk are in the same size range, and I didn't see any of them in the desert. I'm not even sure they live out where I was, though they do live in desert-like areas with more elevation.

As for cows using the same watering holes, I believe they do tend to, yet the damage they do ends up being widespread due to their density on the land. This can be seen within a couple years by fencing off the banks.

Fencing is expensive, an eyesore, and can even put humans off. If the cows aren't getting their water from the streams where do they get a nice cool drink from in the desert?

From cattle tanks. The use of cattle tanks and the fencing of streams moves cows away from the banks of the streams and puts them somewhere that can be used as sacrificial land. You can generally tell where a cattle tank is, too, if you have any elevation to view from, because the area around the tank is pounded into dust with nothing but flies living in it.

I agree that fencing has all the attributes you mention. Get the cows off the land and you wouldn't need any fencing.

[Witis]

They don't need shade for the reasons we need shade. We use shade as relief from the sun, but lots of light doesn't penetrate all that far into water, and heat gets absorbed pretty quickly. What shade does for the fish is keeps the water cooler, which is what keeps the fish cooler. There is also a certain amount of protection from predators, but that often depends on how the vegetation is arranged. In the ocean, the fish can always move around, and the heating from the sun has a different impact.

On the other hand, underwater vegetation does provide cover for lots of fish, so they do use it, though it isn't quite the same thing.

Hmmm, it is still difficult to envision fish that have evolved to live in desert waters needing cool water and a large amount of shade to survive, and if a particular species does need cooler water to survive then there are always points in the stream or river where there are natural rock walls to provide permanent shade and deeper pools as any vegetation is likely to recede as will the size of the water flow in really hot summers. Although I do agree that if the cows kill all of the river bank vegetation then it likely puts extra stress on the system.

A single cow is unlikely to kill a tree. They don't eat them, and they don't kick them into kindling, or anything like that. Lots of cows in an area can trample the banks to the point that the roots of the tree get damaged, or the cows could rub against them until they wear off the bark, but neither of those is all that common. What the cows tend to do is wipe out any new shoots and any brush. A mature tree can take it, young trees die, so as the old trees die from whatever reason, they are not replaced by new trees, and the result is a barrent stream bank.

Are you saying that the cows actually eat the small branches rather than just the leaves and flowers and kill the smaller trees? That sounds a bit of a strange thing for a cow to do, perhaps if they are starving, but I don't imagine cows would typically kill plants and trees rather than just grazing on them.

You are right that there are animals in the desert. In our deserts, the largest animal is generally the antelope. There are places with some elk, places with deer, and places with bighorn sheep. In all cases, the numbers of animals are VERY rare. While crossing 60 miles of desert, I saw about 5 antelope. I also saw several hundred cows. That's roughly the ratio you find on grazing areas. So, while there are other animals, their density is around 1-3% that of grazing cows, and possibly even less. If cow populations were reduced to that of antelope, no rancher could afford it. After all, a cow is several times the size of an antelope, sheep, or deer. Only elk are in the same size range, and I didn't see any of them in the desert. I'm not even sure they live out where I was, though they do live in desert-like areas with more elevation.

As for cows using the same watering holes, I believe they do tend to, yet the damage they do ends up being widespread due to their density on the land. This can be seen within a couple years by fencing off the banks.

Ah ok, I think I might understand the problem now. The ranchers get loads of cattle that are used to grazing on lush vegetation and then move them to the desert. If they let such a large number of cattle graze anywhere near the running water the cattle naturally feel like they are in starvation conditions and head straight for the only green vegetation available and eat everything living on the river banks until they kill it.

From cattle tanks. The use of cattle tanks and the fencing of streams moves cows away from the banks of the streams and puts them somewhere that can be used as sacrificial land. You can generally tell where a cattle tank is, too, if you have any elevation to view from, because the area around the tank is pounded into dust with nothing but flies living in it.

I agree that fencing has all the attributes you mention. Get the cows off the land and you wouldn't need any fencing.

True, although I can't blame the cows for behaving like they are in starvation conditions when they are forced to live in the desert, and that means that if a rancher is going to have cattle in the desert they probably do need to fence off the stream banks to protect the wildlife that lives there.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Your view of a desert might be based on caricatures. Deserts have a lack of precipitation, but heat is optional. The high desert country in southern Idaho does get mighty hot during the summers, but is seriously cold in the winters. There is also abundant grass, it just has a strange lifestyle. We have a period in the spring called the green-up, which is when everything is growing fast. Much of the grass then turns brown and apparently lifeless. This is still forage for cows, the grass has just stopped growing for the year and is effectively dormant. So, it isn't starvation conditions. The cows fatten up fairly well, though they require much more area than would cows in a lush environment.

Still, you have it pretty nearly right. I have no idea what a cow tastes (they will readily eat some poisonous plants and do themselves in, so who knows how things taste to them), but I would think that the lush green vegetation along a stream might be more pleasing than the drier vegetation out on the plains. Wading around in the water is fun for humans as well as cows, so it's not quite clear what the motivation is there, either.

As for the fish, they aren't so much concerned about sunburn. The issue is that the lack of vegetation allows the water to be heated by the sun until it becomes lethally hot for the fish. If the fish are adapted to a desert stream with lots of riparian vegetation, and all that vegetation goes away, then the average and maximum temperatures of the stream will increase. There is no hiding in the shade that will help with that, so they just die.

[Witis]

Your view of a desert might be based on caricatures. Deserts have a lack of precipitation, but heat is optional. The high desert country in southern Idaho does get mighty hot during the summers, but is seriously cold in the winters. There is also abundant grass, it just has a strange lifestyle. We have a period in the spring called the green-up, which is when everything is growing fast. Much of the grass then turns brown and apparently lifeless. This is still forage for cows, the grass has just stopped growing for the year and is effectively dormant. So, it isn't starvation conditions. The cows fatten up fairly well, though they require much more area than would cows in a lush environment.

Still, you have it pretty nearly right. I have no idea what a cow tastes (they will readily eat some poisonous plants and do themselves in, so who knows how things taste to them), but I would think that the lush green vegetation along a stream might be more pleasing than the drier vegetation out on the plains. Wading around in the water is fun for humans as well as cows, so it's not quite clear what the motivation is there, either.

I just don't imagine that the cows would kill off all of the riparian vegetation unless they viewed themselves as in starvation conditions, otherwise they would happily graze their entire enclosure and there would be no serious damage to the flora adjacent to the water.

As for the fish, they aren't so much concerned about sunburn. The issue is that the lack of vegetation allows the water to be heated by the sun until it becomes lethally hot for the fish. If the fish are adapted to a desert stream with lots of riparian vegetation, and all that vegetation goes away, then the average and maximum temperatures of the stream will increase. There is no hiding in the shade that will help with that, so they just die.

Boiled fish sounds delish. Although surely the fish will seek out deeper pools and areas shaded by rock walls if they are really effected by the heat?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I just don't imagine that the cows would kill off all of the riparian vegetation unless they viewed themselves as in starvation conditions, otherwise they would happily graze their entire enclosure and there would be no serious damage to the flora adjacent to the water.

Cows arent' the smartest of animals, but they know what tastes the best. I assume that the lush riparian vegetation is just more attractive to them. Why they destroy it I can't say, only that they do.

Boiled fish sounds delish. Although surely the fish will seek out deeper pools and areas shaded by rock walls if they are really effected by the heat?

I was going to ask if you were British, but then it occured to me that some kinds of boiled fish really is quite tasty. In particular, a nice chowder is always welcome.

Why would water in a flowing stream be cooler in shade than in sun? As long as the water is moving, that which is in the shade is constantly being replaced by that which is in the sun. Shouldn't the water be constant temperature? In my experience, only cool springs in the bottoms of some streams (or elsewhere) create cold-water refuges for fish, and they DO congregate there, but those are rare in the desert. The rest of the stream is pretty uniform in temperature.If you have lots of shade, it is uniformly cooler, that if you have no shade, but the flowing water doesn't suddenly cool down when it flows out of sun into shadow.