Thread: Cattle back in the VicHigh Country

That's odd. One of the few people who has commented and who has detailed his experience of the Victorian Alpine regions seemed to me to have a wealth of experience. I wasn't aware that other people's experience had been made public. Unless of course you just assume that anyone who opposes grazing must have no experience.

One problem that can arise with first hand experience is that it can be limited to a particular aspect of a particular area. Published papers tend to take a broader view, which makes them more useful.

If anyone's first hand experience can provide evidence which addresses the points raised in some of the articles that have been quoted and linked, I would be only too happy to read them. Just dismissing them because they have some connection with the government doesn't give me much information to further my understanding of the issue.

Originally Posted by vnx205

According to these articles:

www.australianalps.environment.gov.au/learn/pubs/grazing.pdf

www.ecolsoc.org.au/Position_papers/documents/AlpineGrazing.pdf

Grazing by livestock in the sub-alpine and alpine zones represents a significant threat to water, soil, nature conservation and biodiversity values.

I guess the same statement could be made about us driving 4WD's and camping in the same sub-alpine and alpine zones (or existing/living anywhere) ................... so how long do you think it will be before before we are locked out? It's a pity that some people still don't understand how the 'extremes' operate.

I've been touring the Victorian high country for over twenty years and have observed that IMHO it was in better condition up until 2005 when the cattle were there and the mountain cattlemen managed the area than since then when the wild dog, pig and deer populations have uncontrollably multiplied in their unmanaged state. The mountain cattlemen looked after the high country (for 175 years) and in my books that is a pretty good record.

Originally Posted by vnx205

That's odd. One of the few people who has commented and who has detailed his experience of the Victorian Alpine regions seemed to me to have a wealth of experience. I wasn't aware that other people's experience had been made public. Unless of course you just assume that anyone who opposes grazing must have no experience.

One problem that can arise with first hand experience is that it can be limited to a particular aspect of a particular area. Published papers tend to take a broader view, which makes them more useful.

If anyone's first hand experience can provide evidence which addresses the points raised in some of the articles that have been quoted and linked, I would be only too happy to read them. Just dismissing them because they have some connection with the government doesn't give me much information to further my understanding of the issue.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with your view that "Published papers tend to take a broader view ......." as they are usually written to make a particular point and seldom disclose all aspects of a situation.

If you wish "to further your understanding of the issue" and gain an insight into the other side of the situation, then have a browse at some of the articles here Mountain Cattlemens Association of Victoria

I have read a few of the articles in the link you provided. I will have a look at some more in the morning when I am more wide awake.

However my impression so far is that some of the articles just repeat the claim that removing the cattle made the fires more catastrophic, but don't elaborate or counter the evidence offered by the CSIRO and other sources. They just make the statement without evidence.

I am prepared to keep looking, but I have to say that so far I have not seen any specific evidence to counter the opposing arguments such as the problem of selective grazing by cattle changing the vegetation and the impact of hard hoof animals on peat bogs.

However as I said, I will read more tomorrow.

As promised, I have read more of the articles on The MCAV site and found some of them interesting.

The best one to read if you don't want to wade through all 263 pages of the senate report is probably this one. I think it represents the most recent, comprehensive explanation of the MCAV point of view.

http://www.mcav.com.au/documents/Fir...ept%202010.pdf

I still have a few questions though. The MCAV makes a point about the descriptions of the bush given by early settlers and explorers. They emphasise the fact that much of the country was open grassland that was less of a fire hazard. Surely at the time it was seen by early settlers and explorers, the country had only been subjected to the indigenous practice of cool, mosaic burns (although the evidence about how long the aborigines had been carrying out the practice in that area in inconclusive. Surely when it was first seen by those settlers and explorers, it had not been grazed by cattle. Yet I get the impression that the MCAV rely on the fact that the country used to be more open grassland as evidence that grazing helped keep it that way. Surely at that time there had not yet been any grazing.

A lot of the criticism of some of the research which has concluded that grazing to reduce fire is not justifiable is based on the claim that the researchers had already taken the stand that grazing should be banned. The MCAV argue that their opinion is therefore suspect. I would have though that th MCAV had an even stronger commitment to allowing grazing. If we apply the same rules, then their evidence should also be suspect.

One point that I have not seen addressed by the MCAV is the the claim that cattle graze selectively and that their selective grazing reduces the fuel load of some grasses, but does nothing to reduce the density of scrubby plants that contribute more to the fuel load. There has even been the suggestion that this selective grazing leads to a proliferation of undesirable vegetation. Is this not a problem? Even if it isn't, I would expect them to address the issue since it is a specific point made by some of those who oppose grazing.

The document is worth reading whether you agree or not. It is worth knowing why the MCAV holds the view that it does.

Some "hard" science:

Does alpine grazing reduce blazing? A landscape test of a widely-held hypothesis
Author(s): Williams RJ (Williams, Richard J.), Wahren CH (Wahren, Carl-Henrik), Bradstock RA (Bradstock, Ross A.), Muller WJ (Muller, Warren J.)
Source: AUSTRAL ECOLOGY Volume: 31 Issue: 8 Pages: 925-936 Published: DEC 2006
Times Cited: 11 References: 45 Citation MapCitation Map
Abstract: 'Alpine grazing reduces blazing' is a widely and strongly held view concerning the effects of livestock grazing on fuels, and therefore fire behaviour and impact, in Australia's high country landscapes. As a test of this hypothesis, we examined the patterns of burning across the alpine (treeless) landscapes of the Bogong High Plains in Victoria, following the extensive fires of January 2003. Data were collected from multiple transects, each 3-5 km long, with survey points located randomly at either 50, 200 or 500 m intervals. The transects traversed the major regions of the Bogong High Plains, both grazed and ungrazed. At each point, we recorded whether the point was burnt or unburnt, the vegetation type (closed-heath, open-heath, grassland or herbfield), the estimated prefire shrub cover, slope, aspect, and a GPS location. At burnt heathland sites, we recorded the minimum twig diameter (an a posteriori measure of fire severity) in a sample of common shrubs. In total, there were 108 km of transect lines, 419 survey points and 4050 twig measurements, with sample points equally distributed across grazed and ungrazed country. The occurrence of fire (i.e. burnt or unburnt) in grazed and ungrazed areas was analysed by logistic regression; the variation in twig diameters by ANOVA. Approximately half of all points were burnt. There was no statistically significant difference between grazed and ungrazed areas in the proportion of points burnt. Fire occurrence was determined primarily by vegetation type, with the proportion burnt being 0.87 for closed-heath, 0.59 for open-heath, and 0.13 for grassland and all snow-patch herbfield points unburnt. In both closed-heath and open-heath, grazing did not significantly lower the severity of fire, as measured by the diameter of burnt twigs. We interpret the lack of a grazing effect in terms of shrub dynamics (little or no grazing effect on long-term cover of taller shrubs), diet and behaviour of cattle (herbs and dwarf shrubs eaten; tall shrubs not eaten and closed-heath vegetation generally avoided), and fuel flammability (shrubs more flammable than grass). Whatever effects livestock grazing may have on vegetation cover, and therefore fuels in alpine landscapes, they are likely to be highly localized, with such effects unlikely to translate into landscape-scale reduction of fire occurrence or severity. The use of livestock grazing in Australian alpine environments as a fire abatement practice is not justified on scientific grounds.
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Author Keywords: alpine vegetation; Bogong High Plains; fire; landscape ecology; livestock grazing
KeyWords Plus: BOGONG HIGH-PLAINS; NATIONAL-PARK; NORTHERN AUSTRALIA; FIRE SEVERITY; VEGETATION; GRASSLAND; HEATHLAND; ENVIRONMENT; MANAGEMENT; INTENSITY
Addresses:
1. La Trobe Univ, Ctr Appl Alpine Ecol, Melbourne, Vic Australia
2. NSW Dept Environm & Conservat, Biodivers Conservat Sci Sect, Hurstville, NSW Australia
3. CSIRO Math & Informat Sci, Canberra, ACT Australia

Unless anyone can find a flaw in the experimental method, then there isn't much to argue about wrt fire and grazing.

With all these types of situations I find it odd that after many years,in this case 175,suddenly there is a problem.If the cattle are doing damage on the high country why did it take so long for the problem to be fixed?.To me it is nothing more than the tree huggers having one of their normal hissy fits. Pat

Originally Posted by KarlB

This is a stupid decision that is more likely to increase the risk of fire than reduce it. The economic returns are far out weighed by the land management costs. Several species on the brink of extinction are likely to be seriously impacted. The damage from earlier grazing is still evident. This is ignorant vandalism, plain and simple. What a great move indeed!

KarlB

I am one of those who regards the above as basically completely wrong.
There is overall strong support for return of cattle grazing in districts around National Parks, primarily to reduce the fire hazard. Properly managed cattle grazing causes minimal damage compared with hot wildfires it considerably reduces the risk of.

Opposition to grazing comes largely from inadequately informed city people who unfortunately swallow a lot of the lies and half truths peddled by green groups led by zealots. When locals invite them to visit and inspect the areas affected and discuss issues, they rarely accept and if they do, often effectively will not heed advice.

One common claim green groups often make is that cattle grazing causes risk of extinction of some native species. They don't want to know that these species have often co -existed with cattle for over 100 years and wildfires due to inadequate fire prevention measures pose a significant threat to their existance.

The recent visit by Federal Minister Tony Burke to one area of the Victorian grazing trial was a disgrace. For show pandering to the Greens Party whose support Labor needs to stay in power rather than genuine consultation. It would be expected that he should meet and discuss the issues with the owners of cattle in the trial and representatives of the Mountain Cattlemen's Association. However, he only met with greens group representatives. Check www.cowpad.info

Re a supposed scientific`study which supposedly showed that grazing does not reduce fire risk and the former Victorian Government used to justify removing cattle grazing compared growth in a grazing lease compared with a similar ungrazed`area and concluded that it had no effect. Not surprising, because the lease owners had not had cattle in there that year.

Re all the "scientists" who supposedly oppose grazing, I doubt many of them have much, if any specialised knowledge of the issue and their scientific expertise is in other areas. Also, what is their combined firefighting experience? Most likely negligible. What is needed is a well publicised survey of opinions of people with actual experience in fighting grass and forest fires on whether cattle grazing overall reduces fire risk and makes fires easier to control. . Especially those who have put in large amounts of time in voluntary capacity and maybe sometimes risked their lives fighting fires which often may not have occurred or been anwhere as large if not for opposition to fire hazard`mitigation measures by radical greenies. To them it is obvious that overall, grazing considerably reduces fire hazard.

I wonder if any of the "scientists" who express disapproval due to their pet notions and /or political preferences would want to publicly debate the issue with experienced firefighters.

Regarding the bill proposed by recently elected Greens Party representative for the Federal seat of Melbourne to stop the National Park grazing trial in Victoria: How would city politicians and their constituents like it if the government imposed policies that adversely affected them because of pressure from a few zealots from outlying rural areas who rarely visited the city and took no notice of people living there? Would obviously regard this as totally unacceptable. Why should the likes of Adam Bandt trying to force their policies on people in other areas who oppose them not be equally unacceptable?

I find`most city people will listen to logical reasoning and many who initially accept radical green views reject them when they hear the other side of the story. Also, many who get around country areas at times have similar views on conservation issues as locals.