Livestock Impacts Hunters and Fishers.
by George Wuerthner. 4-17-02

     If you are a hunter or fisher, livestock production has numerous impacts that negatively affects these activities.

     Livestock affects huntable wildlife in a number of ways that reduces the overall availability of animals by degrading habitat, competing with native species, and increasing losses to predators. There is no free lunch. You simply can't be putting the majority of forage, water, and space into exotic animals like domestic sheep and cattle without seriously affecting the carrying capacity of the land for native species. Counter arguments that livestock production benefits wildlife need careful review and evaluation. In most cases there is no control, or alternative management options would produce the same or better results (Wuerthner 1992).

      Every blade of grass consumed by domestic animals is that much less forage available for wild herbivores. Domestic livestock are direct competitors with wild ungulates and other wildlife for habitat, and also contribute to significant habitat quality declines. The ironic fact is that using public forage, water and space to support domestic livestock makes far less economic sense than using it to produce native fish and wildlife. Every economic study done comparing elk, deer, trout, waterfowl, wolves and even songbirds that attract birdwatchers demonstrates that native wildlife has a higher economic value than producing livestock with these same resources (Duffield et al 1994, Campbell 1970, Loomis et al. 1989, Duffield 1989).

     The single biggest factor affecting hunting opportunities is livestock-wildlife forage and water competition. For instance, a study of antelope and domestic livestock in New Mexico showed that pronghorn diets over-lapped 39% with domestic sheep and 16% with cattle (Howard et al. 1990) And Mackie (1970) reported forage competition between deer, elk and livestock in Montana's Missouri Breaks. Similar findings of dietary overlap of deer and elk with livestock were reported in Oregon (Miller and Vavra. 1982) and Alberta (Teller 1994).

     Moreover, the mere presence of domestic livestock often causes a shift in habitat use by native species. Often these shifts place native ungulates in lower quality habitats with a resulting decline in individual vigor and survival. For instance, mule deer in California were found to shift their habitat use in response to livestock (Lott et al. 1991). Elk in Montana also moved out of pastures that were actively grazed by cattle (Frisina, M.R. 1992). Elk and mule deer in Arizona also decreased after cattle were introduced on to pastures (Wallace and Krausman 1987). And both deer and elk shifted use from preferred habitats in Alberta after livestock were introduced into the area (Teller 1994).

     Disease transmission is another problem. Many bighorn sheep herds in the West are decimated by disease transmitted from domestic livestock (Goodson. 1982, Berger 1990, Krausman et al. 1996). Indeed, the presence of domestic livestock is the major factor that precludes the restoration of wild sheep to many former, but not empty ranges throughout the West.

     Many game birds are also negatively affected by livestock production. For instance, sage grouse populations are in decline throughout the West due to a host of problems created by livestock production (Connelly et. al. 2000). Loss of hiding cover in heavily grazed rangelands exposes nesting grouse and other species like quail and sandhill crane to higher predation rates (Gregg et. al 1994, Brown 1982, Littlefield and Paullin 1990). Grazing of wet meadows used by grouse chicks reduces food availability and increases losses to predators. And fences used to contain livestock creates perching sites for avian raptors that prey on grouse. And haying operations, along with grazing negatively impacts many ground nesting bird species (Kirsh et al. 1978). Waterfowl production also suffers as a result of grazing and haying operations that reduce hiding cover resulting in higher nest failures (Greenwood et. al. 1988, Gilbert et al. 1992).

     The net result is a decrease in overall wildlife populations.

     Fishers are also effected by livestock production. Livestock trampling of streamside riparian habitat has greatly altered aquatic habitats (Chaney et al. 1990, Kauffman and. Krueger. 1984) reducing their carrying capacity for native fish. And proposed solutions like fencing riparian zones are exceedingly costly and have other ecological consequences as well (Platts and Wagstaff 1984). Livestock grazing is responsible for major declines in fish populations throughout the West, in particular species sought after by anglers like trout and salmon (Li, et al. 1994, Dudley and Emburgy 1995, Duff 1977, Marcuson 1997, Platts 1981, Shepard 1992).

     In addition to these direct impacts to fish habitat from livestock trampling and grazing, livestock production accounts for the greatest water withdrawals in the West (Reisner and Bates 1990). Dewatering of streams for irrigation, particularly of hay and alfalfa is the single largest consumer of water in the West and one of the major factors in the decline of native fish (Minckley and Deacon 1990, Moyle and Williams 1990). Loss of fish in irrigation ditches is a significant problem (Good and Kronberg 1986). Needless to say, dewatering not only causes a decline in water quality with higher temperatures and greater concentration of pollutants, but also eliminates spawning and feeding habitat for fish.

    In short, if you hunt or fish, you have good reason to support the removal of domestic livestock from public lands. As livestock numbers are reduced, hunting and fishing opportunities will increase, as well as the quality of the experience.


Berger, J. 1990. Persistence of different-sized populations: an empirical assessment of rapid extinctions in bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology (4) 91-98.

Brown, R.L. 1982. Effects of livestock grazing on Means Quail in southeastern Arizona. J. of Range Management. 35(6) 727-732.

Campbell, H.J. 1970. Economic and social significant of upstream aquatic resources on the West Coast. Symposium Forest Land Uses and Stream Environments. Oregon State University 1970. Chaney, E. W. Elmore and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on Western riparian areas. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.

Connelly, John W., Michael A. Shroeder, Alan R. Sands, and Clait E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985.

Dudley, T. and M. Embury. 1995. Non-indigenous species in wilderness areas: The status and impacts of livestock and game species in designated wilderness in California. Pacific Institute for SIDES: Oakland, CA.

Duff, D.A. 1977. Livestock grazing impacts on aquatic habitat in Big Creek, Utah. In: Proc. Of the workshop on livestock and wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin. University of California Agric. Station, Sci. Spec. Public. 3301: Berkeley, CA.

Duffield, J. 1989. Nelson property acquisition: social and economic impact assessment. Report to Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Duffield, J.W., T.C. Brown, S.D. Allen. 1994. Economic value of instream flow in Montana's Big Hole and Bitterroot Rivers. Research Paper RM-137 USDA Rocky Mountain For. And Rang. Exp. Sta. Fort Collins, CO.

Frisima, M.R. 1992. Elk habitat use within a rest-rotation grazing system. Rangelands 14:93-96.

Gilbert, D.W., D.R. Anderson, J.K. Ringelman, M.R. Szymczak. 1992. Response of nesting ducks to habitat and management on the Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado. Wildl. Monog. 131: 1-44.

Good, W. and C. Kronberg. 1986. Salmonids entering the Hedge Ditch from the Bitterroot River, Summer 1984. Inland fisheries resources and irrigation diversions. Bitterroot Trout Study. Hamilton, Montana

Goodson, N.J. 1982. Effects of domestic sheep grazing on bighorn sheep: a review. Biennial Symposium of the North American Wild Sheep and Goat Council. 3:287-313.

Greenwood, R. J., A.B. Sargeant, D.H. Johnson, L.M. Cowardin, and T.L. Shaffer. Mallard nest success and recruitment in prairie Canada. Trans. 52nd. NA. Wildlife and Natural Resource Conf. Pg. 298-309.

Gregg, M.A., J. A. Crawford, M.S. Drut, and A.K. Delong. 1994. Vegetational cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon. J. Wildlife Management. 58(1)1994.

Howard, V.W., J.L. Holechek, R.D. Pieper, K Green-Hammond, M. Cardenas and S.L. Beasom. 1990. Habitat requirements for pronghorn on rangelands impacted by livestock and net wire in eastcentral New Mexico. Ag. Ex.St. Bulletin 750. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications. A review. J of Range Management. 37:430-437.

Kirsh, L.M. H.F. Duebbert, and A.D. Kruse. 1978. Grazing and haying effects on habitats of upland nesting birds. Pg. 486-497. Trans. Of 43rd. NA Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Wildlife Management Institute, WA. DC.

Krausman, P.R., R. Valdez, and J.A. Bissonette. 1996. Bighorn sheep and livestock. In Rangeland Wildlife. Society for Range Management. Denver, CO. Wagner, F. 1978. Livestock grazing and the livestock industry. In Wildlife in America. Council on Environmental Quality. Washington DC.

Li, H.W. G.a. Lamberri, T.N. Persons, C.K. Tait, J.L. Li. And J.C. Buckhouse. 1994. Cumulative effects of riparian disturbances along high desert trout streams of the John Day Basin. Oregon. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 123: 627-640.

Littlefield, C.D. and D.G. Paullin. 1990. Effects of land management on nesting success of sandhill cranes in Oregon. Wildlife Soc. Bulletin. 18:63-65.

Loomis, J. D. Donnelly, and C.Sorg-Swanson. 1989. Comparing the economic value of forage on public lands for wildlife and livestock. J of Range Management. 42(2) 134-138.

Lott, R.E. J.W. Menke and J.G. Kie. 1991. Habitat shifts by mule deer: the influence of cattle grazing. J. of Wildlife Management. 55:16-26.

Mackie, R.J. 1970. Range ecology and relations of mule deer, elk, and cattle in the Missouri Breaks, Montana. Wildlife Monographs. 20. 79pp.

Marcuson. P.e. 1977. Overgrazed streambanks depress fishery production in Rock Creek, Montana. P. 143-156. In: Proc. Of the workshop on livestock and wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin. University of California Agric. Station, Sci. Spec. Public. 3301: Berkeley, CA.

McIntosh, B.J. and P.R. Krausman. 1982. Elk and mule deer distribution after a cattle introduction in northern Arizona. Pages 545-552. In J.M. Peek and P.D. Dalke. Eds. Wildlife livestock relationships symposium proceedings 10. Univ. of Idaho. Forest, Wildlife and Range Exp. Station. Moscow.

Miller, R.F. and M. Vavra. 1982. Deer, elk, and cattle on northeastern Oregon rangelands. In: Wildlife-livestock relationships symposium. Forest, Wildlife and Range Exp. Station Bulletin. U of Idaho, Moscow.

Minckley, W.L. and J.E. Deacon. Eds. 1990. Battle against extinction: native fish management in the American West. University of Arizona Press. Tucson, Arizona.

Moyle, P.B. and J.E. Williams. 1990. Biodiversity loss in the temperature zone: decline of the native fish fauna of California. Conservation Biology 4(3) 275-284.

Platts, W.S. 1981. Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western North America: effects of livestock grazing. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Exp. Station, Gen Tech. Report PNW-124.

Platts, W.S. and F.J. Wagstaff. 1984. Fencing to control livestock grazing on riparian habitats along streams: Is it a viable alternative? North American Journal of Fisheries Management: 4-266-272.

Reisner, M. and S. Bates. 1990. Overtapped oasis: Reform or revolution for western water. Island Press. Covelo, CA.

Shepard, B. B. 1992. Grazing Allotment administration along streams supporting cutthroat trout in Montana. Rangelands 14(4) 1992.

Stuber, R. J. 1985. Trout habitat., abundance, and fishing opportunities in fenced vs. unfenced riparian habitat along Sheep Creek, Colorado. Pp. 310-314. In: R.r. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, and others tech. Coords.), Riparian ecosystems an their management: Reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-102.

Teller, E. 1994. Cattle and cervid interactions in Alberta. Canadian Field Naturalist 108 (2) pg. 186-194.

Wallace, M.C. and P.R. Krausman. 1987. Elk, mule deer, and cattle habitats in central Arizona. J. of Range Management. 40:80-83.

Wuerthner, G. 1992. Wall Creek Game Range-A Dissenting View. Rangelands 14(1) 8-11.

Yeo, J.F., J.M. Peek, W.T. Wittinger, and C.T. Kvale. 1993. Influence of rest-rotation cattle grazing on mule deer and elk habitat use in east-central Idaho. J. of Range Management. 46:245-250.