Back The Serpents of Paradise Save as PDF
Contents ( 49)
  1. Contents
  2. Editor’s Note
  3. I
  4. Ned: The Early Years
  5. 1927–37: Stump Creek, West Virginia
  6. Hallelujah on the Bum
  7. How It Was
  8. Drunk in the Afternoon
  9. Journal IV
  10. II
  11. Ed: The Early Years
  12. From The Fool’s Progress
  13. From The Brave Cowboy
  14. Manhattan Twilight, Hoboken Night
  15. Author’s Introduction to Desert Solitaire
  16. The First Morning
  17. The Serpents of Paradise
  18. Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks
  19. Tukuhnikivats, the Island in the Desert
  20. Appalachian Pictures
  21. Appalachia, Good-bye
  22. My Life as a P.I.G., or The True Adventures of Smokey the Cop
  23. III
  24. Ed Moves On
  25. From Black Sun
  26. 1971–77: Henry in Love—An Interlude
  27. The Wooden Shoe Conspiracy
  28. The Raid at Comb Wash
  29. Death Valley Junk
  30. Meeting the Bear
  31. Aravaipa Canyon
  32. IV
  33. Postlude
  34. A Colorado River Journal
  35. From Good News
  36. Desert Images
  37. The Damnation of a Canyon
  38. Gather at the River
  39. River Solitaire
  40. Free Speech
  41. Theory of Anarchy
  42. Eco-Defense
  43. A Writer’s Credo
  44. Immigration and Liberal Taboos
  45. Abbey The Fool’s Progress
  46. Postlude
  47. A Few Words in Memory of Edward Abbey
  48. A Selected Bibliography of Works by Edward Abbey
  49. Acknowledgments

Beef ranchers like to claim that their cows do not compete with deer. Deer are browsers, cows are grazers. That’s true. But when a range is overgrazed, when the grass is gone (as it often is for seasons at a time), then cattle become browsers too, out of necessity. In the Southwest, cattle commonly feed on mesquite, cliff rose, cactus, acacia or any other shrub or tree they find biodegradable. To that extent, they compete with deer. And they tend to drive out other and better wildlife. Like elk, or bighorn sheep, or pronghorn antelope.

[Sneers, jeers, laughter.]

How much damage have cattle done to the Western rangelands? Large-scale beef ranching has been going on since the 1870s. There’s plenty of documentation of the effects of this massive cattle grazing on the erosion of the land, the character of the land, the character of the vegetation. Streams and rivers that used to flow on the surface all year round are now intermittent, or underground, because of overgrazing and rapid runoff.

Our public lands have been overgrazed for a century. The BLM knows it; the Forest Service knows it. The Government Accounting Office knows it. And overgrazing means eventual ruin, just like stripmining or clear-cutting or the damming of rivers. Much of the Southwest already looks like Mexico or southern Italy or North Africa: a cowburnt wasteland. As we destroy our land, we destroy our agricultural economy and the basis of modern society. If we keep it up, we’ll gradually degrade American life to the status of life in places like Mexico or southern Italy or Libya or Egypt.

In 1984 the Bureau of Land Management, which was required by Congress to report on its stewardship of our rangelands—the property of all Americans, remember—confessed that 31 percent of the land it administered was in “good condition,” and 60 percent in “poor condition.” And it reported that only 18 percent of the rangelands were improving, while 68 percent were “stable” and 14 percent were getting worse. If the BLM said that, we can safely assume that range conditions are actually much worse.

[Shouts of “bullshit!”]

What can we do about this situation? This is the fun part—this is the part I like. It’s not easy to argue that we should do away with cattle ranching. The cowboy myth gets in the way. But I do have some solutions to overgrazing.

[A yell: “Cowboys do it better!” Answered by another: “Ask any cow!” Coarse laughter.]

I’d begin by reducing the number of cattle on public lands. Not that range managers would go along with it, of course. In their eyes, and in the eyes of the livestock associations they work for, cutting down on the number of cattle is the worst possible solution—an impossible solution. So they propose all kinds of gimmicks. Portable fencing and perpetual movement of cattle. More cross-fencing. More wells and ponds so that more land can be exploited. These proposals are basically a maneuver by the Forest Service and the BLM to appease their critics without offending their real bosses in the beef industry. But a drastic reduction in cattle numbers is the only true and honest solution.