A Far Surpassing Landscape

[This compelling guest essay was written by Mary Macnab of New Mexico, as a comment to a post. But we thought was too good to be hidden in the comments and so place it here with prominence. Thank you, Mary.]

In the Gila Forest, New Mexico, “wilderness” designation and the Mexican Wolf have been superimposed right on top of pre-designated agricultural land. Real healthy-forest-making thinning was practiced by the locals which fed small mills. The local generational forest harvester families were the one’s that went to the Forest Service and told them that the industrial forest use plans they were adapting would be bad for the forest.

People came (and still do) from Idaho and Wyoming to hunt the huge elk. Wolves seem to be devastating the herds by sport killing elk calves. The meadows, which mean food for elk, and therefore wolves, are rapidly disappearing due to pine encroachment. Riparian areas on the Glen Allotment, retired from grazing decades ago, have lost most of the riparian cottonwoods, which seem to be the dam building material of choice for beavers here, and other deciduous trees, while pines encroach. Pines are also rapidly filling up the historic forage meadows and the native grasses are going senescent, patchy, dying out.

The Blue River in Arizona seems to be on its way to becoming a dry gulch via uncontrolled willow and cottonwood growth, ever since cattle access to water at the river was restricted. It now goes dry in some areas and can be seen to rise somewhat in the evening when the un-natural overgrowth stops sucking. The ridges and mountains above are severely unhealthy and overgrown. The results of watershed restoration projects in Arizona in the 1950’s (another similar drought here) showed that flow through the watershed to the rivers and streams could be greatly enhanced by thoughtful restoration of open forests above, and hence we know it is not all because of the current drought. There are now 40+ foot hedges of willow with dense stands of 12 year-old (and growing) cottonwoods right along the rivers edge. It is becoming impossible in many areas to even get to the waters edge. The future of this river most likely will go the way of the spring up the creek from us. USFWS was sued by the “protect nature to death” bunch to build “protective” fence at least 10 feet high around the whole spring area. Historically a small meandering rivulet wandered through rich grass and open forest. Now, about 5 years later, one could barely tell a spring ever existed there except for the especially dense thicket of shrub and small trees. Can’t even find a damp spot on the ground.

I suppose the Southwest is much more sensitive to this kind of “protection” because what we call a river might be considered a “creek” or “stream” up there.

Southwestern fish, dace, minnows, and chubs seem to be dependant on the herding/grazing culture and the human presence in riparian areas here. The overwhelming evidence shows that aquatic populations decline when human and cattle are restricted from influence on the riparian areas (they thrive where trucks splash through river crossings, where cattle water, and where streams pass through corrals). In spite of this, all these activities are labeled “threats” to these same fish in the federal register guidelines for “saving” them by “protecting” riparian areas from these uses and natural enablements by critical habitat designation.

A relatively new study [May ‘06, The Center for Environmental Sciences and Education, Northern Arizona University and the Environmental Studies Program, Prescott College “Impact of Grazing Intensity during drought in an Arizona Grassland” by Loeser, Sisk, and Crews] shows that moderate use, rest, and rotation, the prevailing grazing practice here, produces less exotic grassland species, more native species richness, and better forage coverage than no use at all during this 7 year study.

This boon to natural abundance is nonetheless portrayed and labeled an extraction from the landscape in media, environmental, and Forest Service and USFWS “educational” material. The reality is that traditional human use here, modified by range scientists and forestry knowledge over the decades, results in a landscape far surpassing the extreme “protected” landscape. Yes, even the European immigrant settlers here have learned to form a synergy with nature creating a virtual abundant paradise, with the obvious degradation easy to see with those with proximity and eyes to see.

Having fortunately escaped the massive clearcutting that afflicted much of the Far West, (that stirred up the masses about saving nature), one wonders what is behind the campaign to destroy our rural cultures here, which are so obviously well-suited to living in and enriching our landscape, by those who claim to want to save it. We have this culture living here now yet it is treated as if it must be destroyed before the word gets out that man can truly live a mutually beneficial existence with nature, and that real stewardship of the land was only possible for pre-European settlers.

Meanwhile, my public discussion group on habitat and species, part of the local Forest Revision Process, seems to be gearing up to give us more of the same. The regional rep for The Nature Conservancy moderated the first meeting, which was supposed to have a Forest Service person there just to provide requested information. She also selected and invited others such as the former Director of AZ Wilderness Coalition (a neighbor, retired) to become more active, it seems, with all his comings and goings. Also signed up is a member of the “Wildlands” Council.

He’s been working to destroy his neighbors’ lovely and benign culture ever since he moved here from Connecticut 30 years or so ago.

So the discussion group seems to have hit the pavement running with the same old tired lists of every single important or endangered species, or exotic invasive species, and have divided the entire agriculturally designated, historically well-cared for landscape into habitat types on which to superimpose their species lists, to the end of apparently destroying the good stewards of the land.

Recently an acquaintance told of a recent sighting of a huge bull elk that had found its way to the road, but was spooked by close traffic. The elk attempted again and again to get back into the forest, but it couldn’t penetrate the mostly too dense thicket. Also recently I was struck by the truth in an observation by a summer neighbor, an artist, upon her return from her first excursion down the Blue River on an afternoon. “You know, it’s the people here, that make this place beautiful” she said. The truth of this has struck me again and again on many levels.

The obvious visual beauty enhanced by the historic culture are the still extant beautiful long vistas down the river and across the meadows and grasslands to range upon range of mountain ridges fading into the distance, punctuated by castle bluffs of varied colors.

I guess that if things continue in the destructive “saving nature” pathway that seems more prevalent all the time, eventually we’ll see only thicket, and not very far into it, or else a moonscape like the Rodeo-Chedeski area.