As usual, Pete Crow uses common sense in his column in the Sept. 19 issue of WLJ, describing problems with an environmentalist “rewilding” plan to stop livestock grazing and limit resource development on federal lands.
Twenty scientists and environmentalists wrote a viewpoint article—not a scientific study—called “Rewilding the American West” in the journal BioScience, in which they propose to “rewild” much of the federal lands in the western U.S.
This initiative is described in Anna Miller’s excellent article in the Sept. 5 issue of WLJ. The proposal stems from the Biden administration’s 30×30 plan to conserve 30% of the land and water in the U.S. by the year 2030 (see my article in WLJ, Oct. 25, 2021).
“Rewilding” is not a scientific term. After all, what’s wild? America before Columbus in 1492? The already-designated wilderness areas? A rodeo bull? Teenagers on a Saturday night? What’s wild is simply an opinion.
The goal of rewilding is to implement a science-based program to reestablish vital ecological processes, remove nonnative species and restore key native species on federal lands in the West. The authors of the BioScience article acknowledge that it will be important to consider the inputs of ranchers, hunters, recreationists, private landowners, local government and Native Americans.
The rewilding authors want to remove livestock grazing from a “rewilding network” composed of parts of federal lands in the West, limit the resource extraction industries and greatly expand wolf and beaver populations, which are considered keystone species. The article claims there are threats from mining, logging, oil and gas and grazing, and the authors want to stop the negative impacts of livestock grazing and limit resource extraction and off-road vehicles. I think these claims of threats are one-sided and reflect shallow thinking without appreciation for the good management and economic contributions of the agriculture and natural resource industries.
The science behind the rewilding proposal is not definite and is open to debate: What’s wild, what’s a vital ecological process, what’s a keystone species, do livestock or logging have negative or positive impacts and are wolves and beavers good for the environment? But I think one basic principle matters most: What is the management objective for land and resources? A management objective is simply what you are trying to do and is a basic concept in natural resources and agriculture.
It’s very important to recognize that science does not tell us which management objective is correct or which is better than another. It’s often correctly said that science is “value-neutral”— science tells us about the natural world, but it doesn’t tell us what we should do. Science can guide management—as in your cattle breeding and weed control programs—but science doesn’t dictate what management should be.
Some management objectives are agreed upon by almost everyone. For example, preventing fatalities and property loss from forest and range fires. Other management objectives are favored by some and opposed by others. Your objective might be to graze livestock on your federal leases—the rewilding advocates’ objective is to replace your stock with wolves and beavers as stated in the article:
“Our objective is … a large reserve network … suitable for rewilding two keystone species, the gray wolf and the North American beaver.” Science does not support either livestock grazing or wolves as a better management objective. Remember, science is value-neutral. The point is that science does not support one objective over another, but people do.
As Pete notes in his column, our federal lands are mandated to be managed for multiple uses, including in national forests, under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. Multiple-use management has maintained open spaces and wildlife along with grazing, timber, mining and oil and gas for a long time.
In this case, the resource is federal lands, grazing leases grant property rights and wildlife is a public resource, so the issue can get legally complicated. But the rewilding plan appears to ignore the multiple-use principle and exclude productive livestock and resource use with limited insight. In my opinion, conversion of agricultural land to residential or recreational use, spurred by population growth and high immigration, is a bigger threat to open spaces and wildlife than livestock, mining, logging and oil (see Devin Murnin’s column in the Aug. 29 issue of WLJ).
It’s disappointing to me as a scientist to see an unscientific term (“rewilding”) in a scientific journal, BioScience. There are many scientists, range managers, foresters and other resource professionals in industry and government (USDA, Department of the Interior, state agencies). I hope they join me in publicizing the importance of explicitly identifying management objectives and that science does not favor one objective over another. — Dr. Matthew Cronin
(Matthew A. Cronin is a scientist with Northwest Biology Company LLC in Bozeman, MT. He can be contacted at croninm@aol.com.)
Riddle, W.J. et al. 2022. Rewilding the American West. BioScience, 9 August 2022, 5 pages. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac069
Mann, Charles. 2006. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, New York.
Botkin, D.B. 2012. The Moon in the Nautilus Shell: Discordant Harmonies Reconsidered, From Climate Change to Species Extinction, How Life Persists in an Ever-Changing World. Oxford University Press, New York.
Chase, A. 1995. In a Dark Wood: The Fight Over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York.
Fitzsimmons, A.K. 1999. Defending Illusions: Federal Protection of Ecosystems. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.
Budd-Falen, K. 2021. Biden’s “30 By 30 Plan” – a Slap at American Private Property Rights | Cowboy State Daily
