Eastern United States Versus the West

 Guest post by student Maya Moran - 

Over these past few days, we’ve covered all things related to fire, forest management, and forage production thanks to Matias and Don. We’ve explored many parts of the ranch and really got involved with the sampling and data collection aspect of this class, while also learning as we go. We also got to experience a visit from Montana DNRC, which was all about fire. I also never thought I would have so many prairie plant identifications to consider, which was one of the most difficult things to keep track of while sampling! One concept that seems to be recurring is the differences between thought and action across Eastern and Western parts of the country.

During the forage lessons this week, one thing we talked about was how the forage quality you want really depends on what operation you are running as well as what your long term goals are. This could be impacted by cow-calf operations, beef operations, and also if your forage is eastern or western. So often we may jump to say someone is doing something wrong, when in reality we have to consider more than what we may think is right. In Montana for example, we may see ranchers utilizing more hay than in South Carolina. Some of us Easterners may be opposed to this much reliance on hay to feed cattle, but in somewhere like Montana where the winter is vastly longer, it is necessary. Something else to consider is this arid climate. We all learned that hay loses its nutritional value once wet, which is very likely to happen in rainy South Carolina. Here, sometimes it is required to put even more moisture back into the hay, something really unheard of back home. To me this highlights how important it is to consider the area you are in, and how there is no one right way of doing things.

One thing I’d also like to touch on is judgment for how people choose to get by and survive. Throughout these two weeks, one big concern has been pushing cattle ranchers to convert to row crop agriculture. There has been massive pushback against this movement and an attempt to keep ranchers on the land for as long as possible. Both opponents in this situation tend to really look down on the other, but I’ve been reminded how hard it is to make a living out here, and how sometimes a person just has to do what they can to survive in this world. It’s interesting to me to see how this parallels South Carolina especially. The big thing back home is row crop agriculture, and in a seemingly backwards way when compared to Montana, some people are pushing farmers towards solar power farms. At first thought this seems to be an ‘easy way out’, but when you think a little more you realize that like ranchers in the west, it is hard to make a living as a farmer in the east. Most of these conversions are just ways to stay afloat, and I’ve learned how important this consideration is.

The other big thing we learned about this week was fire. Thanks to some guest speakers from Montana DNRC, I learned about the politics, opinions, and motivations that surround prescribed burns and also wildfires. When talking about fire, it is important to note the attitude differences between the west and the east. Here in Montana, there is more of a concern with structures that may be destroyed, while in the east it seems there is more of a concern in ecological terms. This is not a bad thing, and has more to do with the importance of ranching versus climate. A part of our conversation surrounding prescribed burns stuck with me, and that had to do with motivations of people to burn. To ranchers, fire could mean opening up more land to grow forage on and feed more cattle. To environmentalists, fire may mean increasing native plant species diversity. More negatively, fire may feed arsonists malicious intent. Through this conversation, both prescribed fire and wildfire seemed to make a political turn, and I wondered why this was. Why is questioning the impacts of fire and how it is changing something that may be a touchy subject, or a potential symbol of what you believe in? Shouldn’t we just look at science, from all sides? I think the driver of these questions is that fire is not something simple. As humans, we like our actions to be predictable and easily managed, all things fire is not. When we prescribe fire, there is no way we can know exactly what results may come. This leaves a lot up in the air that ranchers, conservationists, citizens, and leaders have to consider. In turn, fire can easily turn into a vessel of what people perceive your motives to be, when really it’s not so simple. All in all, this week has really taught me that you can’t just consider one viewpoint, as there will always be someone with a different, and valid, perspective than you.