Livestock Grazing and the Endangered Species Act

By Dennis Parker

All too often, livestock grazing has been identified as a generic “threat” to the existence of various and sundry species listed under the authority of the federal Endangered Species Act.  And in almost every case, such generic conclusion has been reached by use of speculation rather than by reliance on scientific study.

According to both government agencies and environmental advocacy corporations, all forms of livestock grazing can be identified as a generic threat to these species based on comparison of uncontrolled or unmanaged grazing to exclusion or no grazing at all.  There are two major problems, however, with this flawed line of reasoning.

First, the comparison used – uncontrolled grazing vs. exclusion – is not relevant to grazing as practiced on lands to which Endangered Species Act jurisdiction applies.  This is because uncontrolled or unmanaged grazing does not occur on federally administered lands.  To the contrary, the only form of livestock grazing that does occur on federal lands is controlled or managed grazing. 

Controlled or managed grazing, unlike uncontrolled or unmanaged grazing, has been shown by the preponderance of journal published scientific literature on this subject matter to better maintain biodiversity and to provide better benefit to many species than exclusion or no grazing at all.  In fact, no scientific study establishes controlled livestock grazing as a threat to any species.

Second, the uncontrolled grazing vs. exclusion studies lack reliability.  This is because many of these studies provide insufficient information about timing, frequency and duration of the livestock grazing regime that was excluded to allow for replication, while others attempt to compare landscapes that are undefined or are not comparable.  Still others improperly attempt to draw broad conclusions based on the comparison of excessively small areas or land units that do not adequately reflect actual and overall range conditions.    

On the other hand, the many scientific studies supporting the conclusion that managed or controlled livestock grazing better maintains biodiversity and provides better benefit to many species than no grazing at all, are both highly relevant and very reliable.  This is because these studies compare managed grazing – or light to moderate grazing as actually practiced on lands to which ESA jurisdiction applies -- to exclusion or no grazing at all.  Moreover, because of their strong study design, these studies are also replicable and therefore reliable.

When relevance and reliability are properly considered, it is clear that the position espoused by many environmental advocacy corporations and federal agencies -- that livestock grazing as practiced on lands to which ESA jurisdiction applies poses a threat to many species -- is actually indefensible speculation contradicted by scientific study. 

Because the ESA requires that threat determinations be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available and because those studies comparing controlled or managed grazing with exclusion represent the best scientific and commercial information available on this subject matter, the inescapable conclusion is that rather than threatening the existence of endangered and threatened species, controlled grazing is beneficial to many.  It is high time the federal government and environmental advocacy corporations began recognizing this inescapable conclusion as well.

<< BACK TO MAIN PAGE