High Sierra Topix

I'm not anti-grazing by any means, but please, NOT in Wilderness Areas! There aren't too many things worse for me when backpacking a wild area to see a herd of cows! I'll never forget being in a very remote area of the Wind Rivers in WY, on day two of a 9-day trip, on a trailess ridge as I did an off-trail crossing to another wild basin, when I saw a large herd of cows up there, and one bull that was not happy to see me. Within minutes I saw a gorgeous herd of bighorns running across this ridge. I do NOT like cows in the wilderness. No sir reee. Not a bit. But regarding the "Bush" comment... I've hiked wild areas during both Repub and Dem administrations and have seen cows just the same. I don't blame cows on a President, even if I'm not fond of whoever is in office at the time. But the cows have got to go! Like Dave said, keep them in lower elevations and in less sensitive environments than our last remaining wild areas in the mountains.

Buck Forester wrote: Like Dave said, keep them in lower elevations and in less sensitive environments than our last remaining wild areas in the mountains.

I don't believe I said that. Although there is a credible argument for it.

Land so sensitive that even carefully controlled grazing would be of net negative impact is not restricted to a particular elevation zone. There are high elevation meadows that can be grazed with a net benefit to the environment and there are lower elevation sites that should not be grazed.

And some of the grazing permits are still held by the same families that has been grazing since before the National Forest system even existed.

Ha! I guess I should be more clear when there's more than one "Dave"! I meant SSSdave when talking about mid-elevation grazing, as he referred to it earlier.

For me much of it is a matter of aesthetics. If we let cows graze in the foothills and flat lands, that's okay to me because they aren't marring unique and beautiful land. Even if a high meadow in the Sierra can environmentally "handle" cows grazing, the sight of them completely sucks and ruins the wilderness experience. I do realize this is in my own mind and my own ideas of wilderness and domesticated vs. wild animals in high mountains, but it's how I feel.

If you want to go with what "Dave" said then I'll stick what what Dave54 implies with his posts...let the science decide where and how to graze.










take from me...another Dave

Well, if "science" says it's scientifically okay to graze cows in Yosemite Valley, I say screw science!

Buck Forester wrote:Well, if "science" says it's scientifically okay to graze cows in Yosemite Valley, I say screw science!

The original thread was about grazing in the Sequoia Monument, administered by the Forest Service, not Yosemite administered by the National Park Service.

Two different agencies with different legal mandates on land management. NPS, with a few exceptions, does not allow grazing on its lands. The Multiple Use Act specifically mentions grazing as an acceptable use of National Forest lands to be given equal consideration as other uses, including recreation (wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation).

I realize 'low', 'mid', and 'high' elevation meadows are subjective definitions, but I really did not think anyone here would put Yosemite Valley in the 'high' category.

Hi dave54! I was just using Yosemite Valley as an example of a "beautiful place", and even if "science" says it's okay to have cattle graze in Yosemite Valley, it's not okay with me. Or any beautiful area in the high country for that matter. Some places are too aesthetically beautiful, and some places are too wild, to have domestic cattle grazing around. It marrs the beauty and takes the wild out of the experience. One reason we have wild lands is for the wildlife to have places to be wild, and another is for the redeeming qualities it has for the human to experience. Even if science says it's "okay" to graze, that doesn't mean it's "okay" on a number of other levels. Of course this is just my opinion and how I feel about it. I don't mind seeing cows in lowland areas so much, but if I hike 10 miles to "get wild" and I come across a herd of cattle, there goes the experience. And it's happened to me a number of times.

Well, it looks like we agree to disagree.

I personally have no problems with seeing cattle in the backcountry. It doesn't bother me.

On the other hand, I try to head to the little known or lesser used corners of the public lands, and seeing other backpackers in 'my secret spot' diminishes the value of the trip. If my goal is to seek solitude then other people sharing the area has 'ruined' my efforts, whereas cattle do not.

I have to second Dave54's notion of rather sharing the backcountry with cattle than people. I have a firm notion that cattle help keep the backcountry the way we know it today. They help diminish fuel loading where fire suppression has been the order of of the day for a long time. There is more life and diversity of life in in open woodlands and meadows than a solid carpet of mature trees. Plus cougars like a change of diet other than puppies ,deer ,kitty's and female joggers. jls

Hey, since when did I give them impression that I really really like seeing other people in remote areas? huh Huh HUH? I thought we were tawkin' cows, not people! I get real remote to get away from both! Not that I don't like people or don't like cows, but if I'm seeking a truly wild experience, I'd rather have neither (except for those in my own party if I'm with others).

The notion that cows are "good" for the high wilderness surprises me. They aren't even natural there. They are good in a burger, but they aren't good for a fragile meadow. Are you guys being serious? That domestic cows are actually GOOD, as in BENEFICIAL, for the wilderness? I'll admit, that's a new one on me, and I thought I had pretty much heard it all! If ya'll aren't pullin' my leg on that one, then the only thing I can think of to respond to that one is "WUT-EVAH"! ha ha! To each his own!