Greens and developer come to agreement in SoCal 9

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Range41 Posted 8:10 am
   08 May 2008

   Wilderness??Of course, I wish it could all stay as it is, but it seems like this is a good an outcome as possible.
   My comment though has to do with the word "wilderness".  This is a working cattle ranch and very much shows the marks of a well tended, sustainable ranching operation.  It is funny to me that the groups who knee-jerk demonize livestock grazing on public lands sell this working ranch as "wilderness".  They apparently can't handle that this ranch has all these environmental benefits and habitats intact and has also supported centuries of livestock grazing.  The truth is that as the "wilderness" parks go in and the cattle come off you can pretty much count on an increase in noxious weed cover and a loss if habitat diversity.  So often, environmentalist come in an area like this and think the plants and wildlife are there "in spite" of the grazing use - they kick the cattle off and expect some fabled return to some imagined pristine state.  Instead they lose the native perennial grasses and get nothing but weeds, lose the wildflowers and lose a lot of the benefits of the water sources around the ranch.
   Its ironic that if the NRDC, Sierra Club and especially the Center for Biological Diversity did not spend so much energy in an ill informed fight against livestock grazing in the west in there effort to preserve "wilderness" and instead supported agricultural as a way of preserving these places - there may have been no need for compromise.  Maybe Tejon Ranch would have been happy staying Tejon Ranch, an intact working livestock operation.

   Permalink

2. 

   Wolverine Posted 7:44 am
   09 May 2008

   Cattle Industry LiesNo animal resembling cattle are native to the western U.S., and the cattle industry has turned the grasslands there into deserts.  Instead of the lies posted above, read some books on the subject, like "Sacred Cows at the Public Trough" by Denzel and Nancy Ferguson, or "Welfare Rancing" by George Weurthener.
   One specific comment: it was the cattle and ranchers that removed the native grasses from the West to begin with.  To claim that cattle are needed in order to maintain native grasses is absolutely ludicrous.

   Permalink

3. 

   Wolverine Posted 7:48 am
   09 May 2008

   Not A Good AgreementWhile "saving" 90% of the land might sound good, the fact is that 27,000 acres will be destroyed.  If an equal amount of land were to be restored from, say, razing 27,000 acres of suburbs, this might be an OK deal.  But what this amounts to is just more environmental destruction that looks good because it's not as much destruction as was originally threatened.

   Permalink

4. 

   greenfire8 Posted 10:14 am
   10 May 2008

   good an outcome as possible?Good points wolverine. Its not a new tactic in business or gov to ask for alot just to get a little. All in all, its more sprawl...
   ironic that if the NRDC, Sierra Club and especially the Center for Biological Diversity did not spend so much energy in an ill informed fight
   There is no irony in this. It was the possibility of a "fight" with NRDC, Sierra, et al that brought Tejon around after a few years. Its not over though. Only 170,000 acres have been protected. 60k now have the option of purchase by the public. Check the article below: "plans still must be approved by state and federal regulatory authorities, as well as Los Angeles and Kern counties."
   http://www.latimes.com/news/local/los_angeles_metro/la-me ... 0, 759061.story
   "The agreement guarantees Tejon Ranch Co. the right to proceed with massive development projects near Interstate 5: Centennial, a planned community of 23, 000 homes east of Quail Lake in northern Los Angeles County; and Tejon Mountain Village in southern Kern County, which will include a resort featuring spas and boutique hotels, commercial space, golf courses and 3, 400 estate homes. The Tejon Industrial Complex in the Kern County portion of the ranch is already home to IKEAâ€TMs 2-million-square-foot main distribution warehouse, among others."

   Permalink

5. 

   Range41 Posted 12:10 pm
   11 May 2008

   RE: Cattle Industry LiesFerguson and Wuerthner are great sources to learn how  urban "appeal and sue" environmentalism has greatly oversimplified natural resource issues and ecology.  For a good source that maybe leans a little too far on the other side check out works by Dan Dagget.  Or for a more academic, balanced perspective read some Nathan Sayres or the work of Dr. Richard Knight.
   As a professional land manager in Southern California I can say with some practical experience that the removal of livestock from these types of grasslands does not yield any environmental benefits. Instead it will lead to a loss of native plant diversity and an abundance of non-native annual grasses.
   My other point is that these type of landscapes could be preserved in their entirety if environmental groups fought to preserve sustainable uses like extensive livestock grazing instead of fighting for "wilderness".

   Permalink

6. 

   Wolverine Posted 3:25 pm
   11 May 2008

   "Professional Land Manager"?That's a laugh!  What a euphemism.  Professional land destroyer would be a far more accurate description.
   
   
   The cattle industry has done more ecological harm to the western U.S. than any other industry, some people claim more than all others put together.  Tell us, Mr. "land manager," how could removal of non-native livestock not yield any ecological benefits?  More fundamentally, how could huge, heavy, non-native animals that graze very heavily not be a huge ecological disaster for the western grasses, which did not evolve with grazers?  And please don't confuse things, the native ungulates are browsers, not grazers.
   What the cattle industry and their lackeys now claim is that without grazing, the non-native grasses, with which THEY replaced the native ones, would take over even more than they now have.  This is a half truth; yes, cattle graze some non-native grasses, but they also do great harm by their grazing of native grasses that did not evolve to be any more than lightly grazed by a small number of browsers that were kept moving and at low numbers by native predators.  A much better approach for the western grasslands would be to totally remove all non-natives, like cattle and sheep, and create a huge public works-type project that has people pulling non-native grasses out by their roots and replanting the natives.  This would be far better work for the planet than that of ranchers, "land managers," and the military, just to name a few.
   Due to their immense weight and numbers compared to the native ungulates, cattle also compact the soil, adding to their destruction of western grasslands.
   There are many other harms in addition to destruction of the grasses that non-native ungulates cause, such as destruction of riparian ecosystems.
   It has been shown, first in Yellowstone, now in Yosemite, that only with top predators keeping ungulates naturally low in numbers and moving will ecosystems be healthy.  So, even if western grasses evolved to be heavily grazed by heavy animals, the number of cattle and sheep would need to be strictly limited, they would need to roam free and unfenced, and ranchers would have to allow significant predation by native predators, such as mountain lions, wolves, and coyotes.  This is so likely that I can easily envision ranchers lining up to agree to it!
   
   
   Denzel and Nancy Ferguson, and George Weurthener are the preeminent authorities on this subject for those who care first and foremost about western ecosystems, especially grasslands.  If your priorities are "managing" the land for cattle or other industries, obviously you have a totally different point of view, but please don't try to convince people that your goal is to restore and preserve the native ecosystems of the western U.S.

   Permalink

7. 

   Wolverine Posted 1:54 am
   12 May 2008

   Even WorseThis is a much worse deal than I previously described.  Apparently, the areas "preserved" are basically undevelopable anyway, and the huge development will be in "federally designated critical habitat for the endangered California condor" according to the Center for Biological Diversity.  See the entire press release here:
   http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/20 ...

   Permalink

8. 

   Lampman33 Posted 4:22 am
   15 May 2008

   Tejon Ranch landsWolverine,  With all due respect, you are displaying your ignorance on the subject of cattle grazing.  The newish term for properly grazing cattle on sensitive lands is called Management Intensive Grazing and if you read about it , you may decide that it has merrit in being practiced on the 'ranch'  I strongly suggest that you read (listen to on CD) Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dillema, Joel Salitan's Polyface Farm, and the many articles in Stockman Grass Farmer, a publication dedicated to the raising of animals on grass, including poultry, pigs, sheep, goats, and cattle.  There is plenty of proof that land can be much improved for all creatures (including the wild, native ones) by managing properly)
   
   I raise grassfed beef in the East at Fox Hill Farm and the priciples of grass based agriculture using MIG and Rotational Grazing apply here as well.
   
   I would love to see a 'side by side' of designated large acreages of the ranch do a project utilizing a 'leave it alone' area versus an area managed under MIG principles in order to demonstrate the differences and to show which is better for the Environment.  I would love to accept that kind of challenge or tell you of people that could do it.
   
   Cordially,
   
   Larry Lampman
   
   Fox Hill Farm, grassfed & grassfinished beef

   Permalink

9. 

   Storm Dragon Posted 5:45 am
   15 May 2008

   Ranching, good and badWith regard to the impacts of cattle ranching: I live in oak savanna country in the central coast area of California, and I have seen both good and bad examples of range management.  On the one hand, I have seen serious overgrazing on hillsides so steep that they should not be used for cattle grazing at all.  On the other hand, I have a neighbor who is very scrupulous about rotating her pastures, and avoiding overstocking.  Her pastures support a healthy and diverse population of flora and fauna, and I have been observing an encouraging regrowth of young oak trees, which is a matter of some concern in this part of the country.  I can't say for certain if these grazing practices are beneficial, but I think it's safe to say that they do little or no harm.
   
       In my view, one of the biggest conflicts between environmental conservation and livestock ranching has to do with the historically adversarial relationship between ranchers and wild predators.  We need to find creative, non-lethal methods of protecting livestock, and reducing these conflicts.
   
         With all their faults, I'm inclined to think that cattle ranches are more environmentally friendly than subdivisions.  

   Permalink