Article

Progress in Physical Geography 2015, Vol. 39(5) 576–593 ª The Author(s) 2015 The Coyote-Proof Pasture Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Experiment: How fences DOI: 10.1177/0309133314567582 replaced predators and ppg.sagepub.com labor on US rangelands

Nathan F. Sayre University of California-Berkeley, USA

Abstract Few scientific experiments have influenced more land than one conducted in the Wallowa Mountains of eastern Oregon by the US Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Plant Industry and US Forest Service in 1907–1909. Four square miles of land were enclosed with a ‘‘coyote-proof fence,’’ guarded by a hunter, and stocked with an untended band of sheep. Data were collected on vegetation and sheep performance inside and outside the fence, and two years later success was declared. By 1910, the Forest Service had wrested range research from the Bureau of Plant Industry, subordinating the emerging field to timber production and fire suppression for decades to come. The young scientist who conducted the experiment, James Jardine, was promoted to Inspector of Grazing for the fledgling Forest Service, while his Wallowa collaborator, Arthur Sampson, went on to become ‘‘the father’’ of range science. The model of range management that they pioneered was applied across the US West and, later, on many rangelands in the developing world. Fencing and predator control are now generally viewed as unrelated management practices, but in the Forest Service model they were intimately connected. A critical physical geography of the Wallowa experiment reveals that the institutional context in which it occurred was more important than the findings themselves, and that although the results appeared to be scientifically rigorous and ecological, the methods were weak and the real criteria for ‘‘success’’ were economic. The high costs of fencing could be justified only if they were offset by a reduction in labor costs for herders. But without herders to guard the livestock, predators would have to be eliminated. Enormous public subsidies were required to implement the model, which continues to affect rangelands around the world.

Keywords range science, grazing, predators, US Forest Service, fencing, herding, fire suppression

I Introduction criticize physical geography from the outside. Rather, CPG ‘‘requires critical human geogra- Lave et al. (2013) have proposed the name phers to engage substantively with the physical ‘‘critical physical geography’’ (CPG) for research that ‘‘combines critical attention to power relations with deep knowledge of bio- physical science or technology in the service Corresponding author: Nathan F. Sayre, Department of Geography, University of of social and environmental transformation.’’ California-Berkeley, 507 McCone Hall #4740, Berkeley Such work neither oversimplifies physical geo- CA 94720-4740, USA. graphy as ‘‘naively positivist’’ nor seeks to Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 Sayre 577 sciences and the importance of the material issues more effectively—but it is a necessary environment in shaping social relations, while part of CPG insofar as the concepts and cate- expanding physical geographers’ exposure to gories used today may benefit from a critical and understanding of the power relations and examination of their origins and histories. human practices that shape physical systems Elsewhere I have treated the terms ‘‘carrying and their own research practices.’’ The need for capacity’’ (Sayre, 2008) and ‘‘anthropogenic’’ CPG, they argue, arises both from the ubiquity of (Sayre, 2012) in this spirit. human influences on biophysical processes— This paper explores the origins of key con- reflected in the increasing adoption of the term cepts and practices in range science, a field of ‘‘Anthropocene’’—and from the insight that sci- applied ecology that arose in the United States entific concepts and ideas are socially mediated around the turn of the 20th century. The history or ‘‘co-produced’’ with the landscapes they seek of the discipline has received remarkably little to describe and understand. attention from scholars, even within range sci- At the core of CPG lies a ‘‘reflexive and ence; critical scrutiny of it along the lines of integrative epistemological spirit’’ that strives CPG is virtually non-existent.1 Prompted by ‘‘to produce critical biophysical and social concern that uncontrolled livestock grazing was explanations while also reflecting on the con- degrading western public lands, federal govern- ditions under which those explanations are pro- ment agencies tasked scientists to find the duced.’’ CPG thus involves scrutinizing not causes of degradation and devise ways to only the findings but also the concepts and reverse it. What emerged was a set of ideas categories of physical geography. These con- about how livestock, herders, herding dogs, and cepts and categories must be understood, wild predators interacted to impact vegetation moreover, both in terms of their theoretical ori- for better or worse, and a corresponding set of gins within a discipline and in relation to the practices that were subsequently implemented broader social and institutional contexts of across the West’s vast public rangelands: fen- their production. Scientific categories have cing, regulated stocking rates, and predator con- histories; they should not be taken for granted trol. In the century since this model was born, as given or natural, but understood as the result the connection between predator control and of actions taken by particular people (scientists fencing has become invisible; the history told and non-scientists) in particular contexts. This here allows us to see that rangeland policies is especially important in cases where repeated might usefully be reconsidered in light of this use over time has cemented concepts into the lost connection. It also uncovers a key assump- literature and occluded the decisions and tion of the logic behind the model—namely, assumptions that attended them at the outset. that reduced labor costs would offset the costs Such decisions necessarily reflected, in some of fencing—and it reveals a historical contin- measure, the social conditions in which they gency that went on to have profound implica- were made, and they very likely rested on tions for western rangelands: the subordination assumptions that may have been faulty from of range science to timber production and there- the start, or that may have become faulty as fore fire suppression. conditions subsequently changed. Critical understanding of the history of con- cepts and categories used by physical geogra- II The Coyote-Proof Pasture phers (and biophysical scientists in general) Experiment is not the only task of CPG—the larger goal On May 9, 1907, the famous naturalist and is to address contemporary problems and Chief of the US Department of Agriculture’s

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 578 Progress in Physical Geography 39(5)

Bureau of Biological Survey, C Hart Merriam, rangelands of the western US in a matter of sent a short memo to , head of decades. In the second half of the century, the another USDA agency, the recently created model was exported to the developing world. US Forest Service. ‘‘Dear Mr. Pinchot: Your Fenced pastures and the near-total absence proposition to build a wolf and coyote proof of large predators have by now been ubiquitous fence on the Imnaha National Forest in Oregon on US rangelands for so long that they are is of great interest to us, and the Biological Sur- widely taken for granted. ‘‘Open range’’ no vey will gladly cooperate with the Forest Ser- longer signifies the absence of fences alto- vice in any way possible to secure satisfactory gether, but instead their absence along remote results.’’2 Three sentences later, Merriam—who roadways, where livestock may imperil motor- in his career described more than 600 species of ists without the livestock owner being liable mammals—concluded with a blunt recommen- for damages. Coyotes, brown bears, and moun- dation: ‘‘After the fence is completed, all wolves, tain lions persist throughout the West, and coyotes, mountain lions and wild cats should of wolves and grizzly bears are still found in parts course be killed or driven out before the sheep are of the northern Rockies, but their numbers are brought in.’’3 He made no mention of the purpose too small to pose a significant threat to live- of the project, and his own agency’s involvement stock; less than 0.25 percent of US cattle, for was quite limited.4 But Merriam took an interest example, are lost to predators, including dogs.6 because the project was a scientific experiment, Range fences are not even designed to repel for which the fence was an important (and expen- predators, because doing so would be far too sive) apparatus. expensive relative to the small risks of preda- The Coyote-Proof Pasture Experiment was a tion. Today, fencing and predator control are joint effort between the Forest Service and a treated as separate issues in public debate and third USDA agency, the Bureau of Plant Ind- policy recommendations,7 and the historical ustry (BPI). Conceived by Pinchot, it was link between them is forgotten. designed by Frederick Coville, Chief Botanist To be sure, both fencing and predator con- in the BPI, and although it was not the first sci- trol predated the Coyote-Proof Pasture Experi- entific experiment in range management, as is ment, and their combined use on rangelands sometimes claimed,5 it was the first to be might be considered coincidental. But Coville deemed successful, and its results helped trans- and Jardine’s experiment united them in an form the very institutions that had produced it. effort to understand range livestock production Inspired by this perceived success, the Forest scientifically and to use that understanding in Service permanently took over range research the formulation of policies. The inspiration for from the BPI in 1910, and the young scientist the experiment lay not in rangelands at all, but whom Coville had hired to conduct the experi- in the much smaller pastures of the eastern ment, James T Jardine, became Inspector of United States and Europe, where fencing was Grazing for the Forest Service. Jardine’s colla- primarily a means of keeping livestock away borator, Arthur Sampson, went on to become from crops, rather than keeping predators away ‘‘the father of range science.’’ The Wallowa from livestock. To apply the pasture model to experiment thus had enormous implications for the much drier, expansive lands of the western how rangelands would be studied and managed range, however, the Forest Service had to inter- for the rest of the 20th century. From four pret the results of the Wallowa experiment in square miles in the mountains of eastern Ore- ways that elided or overlooked many important gon, a model of range management based on details. Fencing had to make sense at the scale fencing and predator control spread across the of thousands or tens of thousands of acres, for

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 Sayre 579 example, rather than 1–40 acres. The results watersheds, but they also encompassed large with sheep had to be extended to cattle, even areas where livestock owners had been grazing though cattle are far less vulnerable to predation. their animals for decades or more. The relation- Most importantly, the attribution of causality had ship between forests and rangelands, trees and to shift from the removal of predators—which grasses, timber and forage, was at once a scien- putatively reduced livestock trampling of vegeta- tific, management, and bureaucratic question. tion—to the control of stocking rates by fencing, Forestry had by this time emerged as a small which came to be viewed as improving the com- but recognized scientific field, imported from position and production of range vegetation.8 Europe and first institutionalized at Cornell The Coyote-Proof Pasture Experiment sanc- University in 1898 and at Yale in 1900. The tioned and catalyzed the institutionalization of USDA had begun assessments of the nation’s a set of practices of US rangeland administra- forests in 1876, organized since 1881 under the tion and management that presupposed the com- Division of Forestry, and Division Chief Bern- bination of fencing and predator control. The hard Fernow could point to thousands of pages model rested on weak scientific foundations, of published forestry research when he stepped as we will see, but it spread for other reasons, down in 1898 (Steen, 1998: 4). Research on enabled by large public subsidies over many rangelands, in comparison, had barely begun. decades, especially in the form of labor under It had not attracted the agency’s attention until Depression-era jobs programs. This is ironic 1895, when the Division of Agrostology was because reducing labor—in the form of her- created in response to devastating drought and ders—was the semi-visible, ulterior motive of consequent overgrazing, especially in the South- both fencing and predator control. west. Little more than taxonomic and reconnais- sance surveys had been completed in the West by 1900 (Shear, 1901), when Agrostology was 1 The context: the USDA and the western combined with five other divisions into the range circa 1900 Office of Plant Industry, renamed the following The first two decades of the 20th century were a year as the Bureau of Plant Industry. The Divi- period of ongoing and sweeping reorganization sion of Forestry also became a bureau in 1901. within the USDA, especially with regard to the Without a land base, however, none of the West’s vast public lands. At the turn of the cen- USDA’s various bureaus ‘‘could do more than tury, the public lands resided within the Interior advise and research’’ (Pyne, 1982: 191). Con- Department’s General Land Office, whose prin- gress and the Interior Department had been cipal mandate was to dispose of them under studying and debating the administration of the nation’s various settlement acts. But the the forest reserves since their inception, but the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 had authorized the matter was only resolved in 1905, when the President to withdraw timbered lands from dis- reserves were transferred to the USDA and its posal, and as the forest reserves grew in size and new US Forest Service, headed by Pinchot and number, Congress and the Interior Department facilitated by his close friendship with President scrambled to decide how to administer and man- Theodore Roosevelt. As Pyne (1982) notes, the age them. Along with mineral resources and Transfer Act catapulted forestry to the forefront water, the region’s key natural resources were of American conservation not on the basis of its forests and rangelands, both of which were con- scientific credentials—which were quite mea- sidered to be in crisis due to unrestrained com- ger in comparison to, for example, the US Geo- mercial exploitation. The forest reserves were logical Survey—but by virtue of the 63 million justified legally as a means to protect timber and acres of land that the Forest Service suddenly

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 580 Progress in Physical Geography 39(5) controlled. Dedicated to science as the means in charting the course of rangeland research and of striking an optimal balance between utiliza- administration must be considered among his tion and conservation, Pinchot moved quickly most enduring accomplishments. For Roose- to expand and consolidate research on several velt’s Public Lands Commission, he wrote the fronts. But the bureaucratic divisions within blueprint for the grazing lease system subse- USDA persisted, and expertise on range- quently adopted by the Forest Service (Potter lands—what little there was of it—remained and Coville, 1905), and his fieldwork and in the BPI. reports in the decade after 1897 set the terms The European forestry model was ill suited to of engagement for public range grazing North American forests because it failed to research. As Pinchot succinctly put it years recognize the importance of recurrent fires for later, ‘‘Until the Forest Service developed a their functioning and persistence, as Pyne body of experts of its own, Frederick V. Coville (1982: 184–198), among others, has shown. But was the first and the earliest authority on the in most places, fires were a function not so much effect of grazing on the forest’’ (quoted in of the trees themselves, but of the grasses that Maxon, 1937: 280). grew beneath and between them, providing the Struggling to define and assert management fine fuels in which recurrent fires could start and authority over the forest reserves, the General spread. European forestry’s ignorance of—and Land Office had banned all livestock grazing prejudice against—fire, then, reflected its ignor- in 1894, believing it necessary to protect forest ance of grasses, which in the European context regeneration and reduce fires. The move pro- were deemed important only in ‘‘improved’’ voked resistance from sheep and cattle owners pastures that were both spatially and intellec- throughout the West, and at the end of June tually segregated from forests. This division of 1897, new policies were announced rescinding scientific labor transferred directly to the US the ban for cattle nationwide but retaining it for as well. Pinchot had to reach outside his agency sheep, except in the reserves of Oregon and to initiate scientific studies of the range. And Washington, where ‘‘the continuous moisture after the Forest Service absorbed range research and abundant rainfall ...make rapid renewal a few years later, the interests and priorities of of the herbage and undergrowth possible’’ forestry would dominate the fledgling field of (quoted in Coville, 1898: 11). A week before range science for decades to come. announcing the partial rescission, the Secretary of Agriculture instructed Coville ‘‘to make an investigation of the alleged damage to forests 2 Conception of the experiment by grazing of live stock [sic], more especially Frederick Vernon Coville (1867–1937) was the the effects of sheep herding in the Cascade son of a bank director in upstate . Forest Reserve of Oregon,’’ which had been After graduating from Cornell, he was hired as created in September 1893. His subsequent Assistant Botanist in the USDA in 1888, and report (Coville, 1898) clearly articulated the five years later he succeeded as empirical and analytical framework from which Chief Botanist and honorary Curator of the the Coyote-Proof Pasture Experiment would National Herbarium. He is most famous for his later be designed. work as a botanist, especially in connection with Coville’s field methods were both ecological the Death Valley Expedition of 1891, and for his and ethnographic,9 and he came to see fencing, path-breaking research on the , which herding, and predators as tightly inter-related helped make it a commercial crop in the north- elements of the problem of the western range. eastern US. Although less well known, his role To begin with, he emphasized the distinction

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 Sayre 581 between ‘‘farm sheep’’ and ‘‘range sheep,’’ removal of a grass crop from a fenced pasture by graz- pointing out that whereas the former were ing or from a meadow by cutting; namely, that a forage fenced, the latter were herded, crop is secured without material detriment to the land and the herbaceous vegetation it bears ...By ‘‘a moder- on the great areas of unfenced public or Government ate amount of grazing’’ is meant grazing only to such an land, popularly known as the open range, the outside extent that the forage crop does not decrease from year range, or simply the range. Because this land is not to year (Coville 1898: 26). fenced, and because unprotected sheep would be liable to destruction by wild animals, especially coyotes or Overgrazing in the Cascades had occurred, prairie wolves, these range sheep are accompanied and according to Coville, but it was neither ubiqui- cared for by a man who is called a sheep herder, or sim- tous nor longstanding, and it had not yet altered ply a herder. As a matter of economy, each herder is the composition of vegetation in the reserve. He intrusted [sic] with as many sheep as he can properly attributed the damage he observed not to the manage, commonly two or three thousand (Coville, herbivory of the sheep but to their physical 1898: 9). movements. ‘‘The principal bad effects of over- Coville firmly rebutted two widespread grazing are to be attributed rather to trampling claims about sheepherders: first, that they were than to actual close cropping’’ (Coville, 1898: ‘‘aliens’’ or non-citizens who represented ‘‘a 27). This could be prevented, he believed, by comparatively low class of humanity’’ (Coville, securing sheep owners’ access to the range 1898: 12); second, that they were responsible resource. Open access for all made each herder for starting forest fires. These were politically rush to use the range ahead of the others, ‘‘to get volatile (and brave) arguments to make, and all the grass possible without reference to the they stood in sharp contrast to the prevailing next year’s crop, for he [the herder] is never cer- views of many prominent figures, such as tain that he will be able to occupy the same John Muir, who famously described sheep as range again. Where the competition is close ‘‘hooved locusts’’ and whose vision of wilder- the difficulty of insufficient forage is increased ness erased and excluded both non-whites and by the haste of the herder in forcing his sheep laborers of all kinds (DeLuca and Demo, too rapidly over a grazing plot, the result being 2001). Coville sidestepped the polemics, appar- that they trample more feed than they eat. So ently considering both of his claims to be settled year after year each band skins the range’’ by the facts on the ground. Instead, he focused (Coville, 1898: 50). A system of permits to his analysis elsewhere, detailing the herders’ graze specified areas would relieve this com- management techniques, their knowledge of petition, and also enable the government to the value of different plants for sheep growth, impose other terms, such as stocking rates and and the variation in their skills. He noted that rules regarding fires. ‘‘The acreage per sheep required for grazing Coville conducted similar fieldwork in Ari- throughout the summer is exceedingly variable, zona in 1900 at the invitation of Pinchot. The depending on the kind and character of the conflict there also concerned sheep grazing, but vegetation’’ (Coville, 1898: 18). Above all, he in relation less to timber and fires than to made the case that sheep grazing could be man- watershed conditions above the Salt River, aged such that it would be—in today’s terminol- whose waters were being developed for irriga- ogy—sustainable, and to do this he likened the tion in the Phoenix basin below. The trip was range to a pasture: proposed and hosted by Alfred F Potter, a pro- minent local sheep owner and secretary of the The effect of a moderate amount of grazing on the lands Arizona Wool Growers’ Association. After a of the reserve is the same as the effect of the judicious three-week wagon tour of the Mogollon Rim

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 582 Progress in Physical Geography 39(5) country, Coville and Pinchot concluded, as in cover Coville’s salary and expenses, while the Oregon before, that sheep grazing should be per- Forest Service paid the rest of the costs. mitted but carefully regulated. Shortly thereafter, In mid-May, Coville headed west to set up Pinchot recruited Potter to come to Washington the experiments. From his hotel in Lincoln, as Assistant Forester in charge of the Branch of Nebraska, he wrote to Pinchot: Grazing. Potter and Coville would later author key parts of the Public Land Commission’s After a conference with Professor [Charles] Bessey and Professor [Frederic] Clements, and with the pro- 1905 report, making the case for exclusive leases spective appointee himself, I have secured one of the to graze fenced allotments of the western range. men we want for the forest grazing experiments. He The trip also cemented a long-lasting friendship is Mr. Arthur W. Sampson, a resident of the state of between Coville and Pinchot. Nebraska, and a graduate student of the University. He is an expert in plant ecology and should be 3 Implementation of the experiment appointed as such. In late March of 1907, Pinchot and Potter met Sampson’s training under Bessey and Clem- with CV Piper, Chief Agrostologist in the BPI, ents was critical for Coville because it meant to discuss ‘‘the range investigations which they that the other men he hired would not need would like to have undertaken by this Bureau.’’ expertise in or ecology; its importance In a memo the following day, Piper reported to for the future of range science was even greater, Bureau Chief BT Galloway that the Forest Ser- because it helped install Clementsian ecological vice had reduced stocking on northwestern theory as the foundation for the discipline. Five sheep ranges by about 25 percent, ‘‘by agree- days later, in Logan, Utah, Coville hired Jar- ment with the stockmen. It is however the dine, describing him thus to Pinchot: desire of the Forest Service to increase the car- Mr. Jardine is twenty-five years old, a graduate of Utah rying capacity of these summer ranges and agricultural college, and now an instructor in that insti- consequently the allotment of stock to each tution. He was brought up on a ranch in southern Idaho district as rapidly as possible,’’ and ‘‘to permit and is familiar with the handling of cattle, horses, and as many stock as possible to run on these sum- sheep. He is well qualified both by his personal charac- mer ranges.’’ Experiments were needed to teristics and his training to take part in the forest graz- determine whether degraded ranges could be ing investigations. reseeded, and to determine, En route from Lincoln to Logan, Coville what system of range management both with cattle stopped in Laramie, Wyoming, to interview a and with sheep will best permit the more valuable prominent sheep owner by the name of Francis native grasses to re-seed themselves and thus increase S King. An immigrant from England, King and the carrying capacity and maintain it at a maxi- his brothers owned or leased some 120,000 mum ...The investigations will not only be necessary acres of private land in Wyoming and were to the best administration of these range lands but will famous for their prize-winning purebred Mer- result in enormous benefit to the live stock interests of ino, Rambouillet, and Corriedale rams and ewes the West. (Bartlett, 1918: 59). Coville’s notes from the Piper recommended that JS Cotton, who had meeting suggest that King’s ideas and opinions studied range conditions in central Washington played a significant role in refining the details of (Cotton, 1904) be put in charge of the exp- the imminent experiments in Oregon. King saw eriments. It appears Pinchot overrode this sug- two advantages to protecting sheep within a gestion in favor of Coville. An inter-bureau predator-proof enclosure: reduced labor costs agreement was reached that the BPI would and improved animal performance:

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 Sayre 583

Lambing within a wolf and cat proof fence would be represented obstacles to the efficient use of highly advantageous, because three men could lamb range resources on the national forests: 2500 ewes, one to keep the drop herd bunched and moving, one to move each lamb and ewe to shelter, one A large loss of vegetation by trampling is inherent in to look after the lambs for a day or two. Mr. King now the herding system itself. Even with the best herders has to use 5 men with each half band of 1500 lambing it is impossible to handle large bands of sheep with sheep. These men are kept with the half band about 10 the same grazing efficiency as is secured in the days. Such temporary help is often not trustworthy. On fenced pastures of the eastern United States, and a wolf and cat proof range two men could care for 8000 when one considers the large percentage of herders to 10000 sheep. who are not skilled or who have a greater regard for their own comfort than for the interests of the owner King reported results from his own kind of of the sheep or for the permanent welfare of the experiment to support the claim that sheep range, the aggregate waste can be regarded in no would gain more weight and produce more wool other light than as a matter of serious public concern. if fences replaced herders, because the animals’ That one-third of the vegetation on the sheep ranges behavior would change. in the National Forests is destroyed by trampling is regarded as a conservative estimate (Jardine and When lambs bunch together as they do when a band Coville, 1908: 5–6). beds down [on the open range], they run off a large amount of fat in racing and playing. A bunch of 37 thor- Where this estimate came from is not clear, oughbred lambs run in a band averaged about ten but it gained traction as a means of asserting pounds lighter than the same number of lambs the fol- the importance of finding an alternative to lowing year from the same dams and sires run in a pas- herding. Jardine used it, for example, to con- ture on grass not quite so good. Difference of $3.50 in price of lambs. The ewes sheared 2 to 3 pounds more. vert the impacts of trampling to dollar figures for the national forests as a whole: ‘‘It is esti- The core problem, according to King, was the mated that the gross income of sheep owners herding system itself, with all that it entailed: last year from the grass in the National Forests unreliable laborers moving sheep in bands or was $7,225,000, and that the grass trampled bunches across open range in the presence of and wasted represents a possible additional predators. Coville noted ‘‘from 5 to 15 percent gross income of about $3,500,000’’ (Jardine loss from herding and wild animals,’’ and he and Coville, 1908: 6). Trampling represented listed numerous reasons to be rid of herding: a double loss: not only of forage not eaten, but also of weight and wool not produced due to  Five per cent of lambs lost on account of herding system; wasteful expenditure of the sheep’s energy.  One per cent loss in grown sheep due to herding On June 3, Coville reported to Pinchot that he system (Three percent is customary loss of old had selected a site with good forage, ready sheep from all causes); access by wagon, and ‘‘an abundance of coy-  Saving in herding; otes, wild cats, and bear, with an occasional  Carrying capacity of range, probably double; cougar and lynx.’’ ‘‘The stockmen’’ in the area,  Condition and value of stock and wool;  Sheep fatter, healthier, wool worth more. he wrote, ‘‘are greatly interested in the experi- ment, the consensus of opinion being that under These were the expectations that Coville a pasture system the carrying capacity of the carried into the experiment when he arrived in range will be doubled.’’ He had found a ‘‘thor- Oregon in late May.10 Even before real data oughly efficient hunter’’ to hire for the project, were available, he expressed his views in the and he recommended some modifications to the introduction to Jardine’s first report, published fence design based on his conversations in the following year. Both herders and herding Wyoming (presumably with King). He had also

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 584 Progress in Physical Geography 39(5)

placed in the new pasture for one month and observations were made both of their behavior and of the effectiveness of the fence at repelling predators. As for the latter, ‘‘the fence proved successful as a protection against coyotes, not successful as a protection against grizzly bears, doubtfully successful against black and brown bears, still problematic against cats, and not suc- cessful against badgers’’ (Jardine and Coville, 1908: 23). The hunter and his hounds patrolled the perimeter each day, recording signs of predators and, when possible, pursuing them (Figure 2). But just as Merriam had feared, one coyote was trapped inside the completed fence, and two sheep were lost to predators—one to a bear and another to the coyote (Jardine and Cov- ille, 1908: 21). These predators interfered with efforts to observe ‘‘the action of sheep when they are allowed perfect freedom in an inclosure [sic] and protected from annoyance by animals’’ (Jardine and Coville, 1908: 25), but Jardine Figure 1. The coyote-proof pasture fence, Wallowa nonetheless judged that ‘‘the test was very satis- National Forest, 1907, shortly after construction. factory. They [the sheep] retained, more or less, Trees were cleared for 10 feet on either side of the natural instinct to mass, but from the first the fence to prevent wild cats from leaping over day the tendency to open, scattered grazing, from overhanging branches. One strand of barbed with little or no trailing, increased’’ (Jardine and wire was stretched along the ground surface to dis- Coville, 1908: 29). While conceding that solid courage predators from digging underneath. Photo data had yet to be collected, Jardine concluded: courtesy of the National Archives, College Park, MD. ‘‘That the experimental system will materially met with the press to promote the experiment. increase the carrying capacity of the range is not One reporter wrote: to be doubted’’ (Jardine and Coville, 1908: 32). It is believed that the same amount of grass will support 4 Conducting the experiment many more sheep when they are pastured than when they are herded. Should this theory be proved, the result The following summer, after repairs had been will revolutionize the entire policy of the department in made to the fence, a band of 2209 sheep was regard to the reserves and will have a great bearing turned into the coyote-proof pasture without a upon the stock industry.11 herder. The hunter resumed his daily patrols, and the behavior of the sheep was monitored all By mid-June, Jardine and Sampson had day, every day from June 21 to September 24. reported for duty, the fence was under construc- Only 15 sheep died during the 96 days, none due tion, and Coville soon returned to Washington. to predation. The objective was to induce ‘‘open The fence—an imposing and elaborate combi- grazing,’’ as Jardine termed it. nation of barbed wire, wire mesh, and stout posts (Figure 1)—was completed too late for a Whether sheep are in large or small bunches it is full season’s research, but a band of sheep was essential for the protection of the range that they be

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 Sayre 585

Figure 2. JK Carper, the hunter hired to patrol the coyote-proof pasture, and his hound, 1908. Photo courtesy of the National Archives, College Park, MD.

well scattered and graze quietly. Close-bunched graz- (Jardine, 1909: 23). They formed smaller bunches, ing, massing, running, and trailing one after another both while grazing and also to sleep at night, should be prevented if possible, not only for the good and they moved more lightly over the landscape. of the range but for the good of the sheep. In this ‘‘The result was that little or no damage was done respect there was marked change during the season (Jardine, 1909: 23). to the forage crop in this way. The entire crop was eaten and not wasted’’ (Jardine, 1909: 23). Here, the predators were not the only cul- By weighing 20 lambs ‘‘of average size’’ at prits: herders themselves, and especially her- the beginning and end of the experiment, and ders’ dogs, were like predators in that they collecting similar data from bands herded on the could provoke fright in sheep and cause them range nearby, Jardine was able to compare ani- to bunch, mass, and run. But the fence removed mal performance under the two systems. In 88 herders and dogs as well as predators, and over days inside the fence, the pastured sheep gained the course of the summer, ‘‘the sheep gradually an average of 20 pounds, whereas those from a became accustomed to free, unmolested grazing, band on the outside gained only 15 pounds, on and forgot the habits learned when herded’’ average, in 96 days. Overall losses among four

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 586 Progress in Physical Geography 39(5) outside herds ranged from 1.4 to 3 percent, com- The experiment was repeated in 1909 with pared with just 0.5 percent for the fenced herd. 2040 sheep enclosed in the pasture for 99 days, Finally, the fenced sheep required only 0.0156 during which time only four perished. The acres per sheep per day. Three open range herds, results were nearly identical to those from roughly estimated, required 64–123 percent 1908, although Jardine’s report was more more acreage, which Jardine attributed to the detailed and more emphatic in its declarations effects of trampling (and, in one case, ‘‘poor of the virtues of ‘‘the pasturage system.’’ The herders, who were of French descent, unable hunter killed one grizzly, two badgers, seven to speak English’’ (Jardine, 1909: 32)). ‘‘It is brown bears, and seven coyotes (the grizzly was safe to conclude that range grazed under the killed even though it made ‘‘no attempt to go pasturage system will carry 50 per cent more through [the] fence’’), and just one brown bear sheep than when grazed under the herding sys- and three badgers managed to breach the fence tem, where the band is driven to and from camp (Jardine, 1910: 8). The sheep again displayed each day’’ (Jardine, 1909: 32). a gradual tendency ‘‘to depart from their old In the closing pages of his report for the 1908 habits and accommodate themselves to the free- season, Jardine took up the economic question: dom of the pasture,’’ so much so that by the end ‘‘Will the pasturage system pay?’’ Here he faced of the season ‘‘it was almost impossible to keep a difficulty, because the coyote-proof pasture had them close bunched without a dog’’ (Jardine, been very expensive to construct: $6764.31, to be 1910: 18, 19). Losses to poisonous plants, as precise, including more than $2000 in materials, well as predators, were higher among sheep $1000 in transportation costs, and $1000 to clear herded outside the enclosure, and the pastured heavy timber from portions of the fence line sheep were again heavier at the end of the sea- (Jardine and Coville, 1908: 18–19). This son than the herded sheep (although this may amounted to nearly $850 per mile (equivalent have been due to differences in breeding) to over $22,000 in 2014 US dollars). Jardine (Jardine, 1910: 25). Acreage required per sheep chose not to use these figures, however, argu- per day was 52–90 percent higher outside the ing that the location was exceptionally remote fence, although Jardine attributed some of this and heavily timbered. Using more general to poor quality herders (including the one of estimates, he calculated that ‘‘the cost on most French descent, again, though by this time he grazing lands will approach very closely $400 had learned a little—‘‘very little’’—English) a mile’’ (Jardine, 1909: 39). He then tabulated (Jardine, 1910: 27–28). the financial benefits in increased carrying The issue of herder skill presented a puzzle, capacity, heavier sheep, reduced losses to pre- which Jardine acknowledged but failed to dation, and lower labor costs. Not counting address directly. ‘‘A first-class herder will work increases in the lamb crop and in the amount all the time’’ and seldom use a dog, resulting in andqualityofwool(whichheconsideredto ‘‘quiet, scattered grazing that may approach the be certain but not yet measureable), Jardine pasturage system in efficiency’’ (Jardine, 1910: arrived at an annual return of $746.50, based 31), whereas ‘‘a lazy man ...will wear out his on a herd of 2200 sheep in a 2560-acre pasture dogs, worry the sheep, and destroy the forage’’ for three months. Thus, an initial investment of (Jardine, 1910: 32). With respect to weight gain, $3200 (for eight miles of fence), at 8 percent ‘‘there is as much difference in the results interest and including maintenance, would pay obtained by a first-class herder and those for itself and begin yielding dividends after six obtained by a poor herder as there is between the years. He did not include the costs of the hunter results under the pasturage system and those in his analysis. secured by the good herder’’ (Jardine, 1910:

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 Sayre 587

26). And while ‘‘range grazed under the pastu- increase by 25–50 percent, and labor costs rage system will carry from 25 to 50 per cent ‘‘will not exceed 25 per cent of the cost under more sheep than when grazed under the herding the herding system’’ (Jardine, 1910: 29). system,’’ it was also possible ‘‘that an excellent Although he did not present numbers for herder can, to a considerable extent, allow his 1909, he again concluded that ‘‘the increase sheep freedom and keep them quiet, thereby in carrying capacity and decrease in expense increasing the carrying capacity of his range. of handling in pasture during the lambing sea- No doubt there are herders who do this’’ (Jardine, son will justify the cost of construction neces- 1910: 28). All told, ‘‘the carrying capacity of the sary to inclose [sic] the entire allotment’’ same range utilized by different herders may (Jardine, 1910: 40).12 vary at least 25 per cent’’ (Jardine, 1910: 31). The Wallowa experiment was hailed as a These were potentially troublesome admis- remarkable success, and the Forest Service sions to make, for both scientific and economic quickly embraced it as guidance for the admin- reasons. Herder skill was clearly an important istration and management of rangelands gener- variable in sheep performance, but it was one ally. It appeared to solve numerous problems that Jardine could neither measure nor control. and satisfy everyone, provided one ignored or Removing herders might thus be seen as neces- excluded the herders. In his ‘‘Annual Report sary to a properly ‘‘scientific’’ assessment of to the Forester for the Fiscal Year 1909–1910’’ range grazing. And it could clearly affect any for the Branch of Grazing, Potter described the calculation of the economic rationality of build- results as ‘‘very gratifying’’ and summarized ing fences and controlling predators. What if them as follows: better training for herders were a more econom- ical solution? Instead of confronting these The primary objects of the experiment have been issues, Jardine reverted to general claims about accomplished, i.e. it has been demonstrated that labor needs under the pasturage system, super- the grazing capacity of the Forest lands can be seding by half the estimate that King had given largely increased by improved methods of handling to Coville two years earlier: ‘‘It is probable that stock, and that the increased cost of such methods, one energetic man ...can properly care for four if any, is offset by increases in the number and weight of lambs raised, heavier wool crops, and inclosures [sic] similar to the experimental reduced losses from predatory animals. coyote-proof pasture,’’ meaning ‘‘one man would care for from 8,000 to 10,000 head of sheep’’ (Jardine, 1910: 22). Notably, Potter omitted any reference to Notwithstanding these problems, Jardine labor costs in his summation. He suggested that reached the same conclusions in 1909 as he had the results be applied ‘‘to spring and fall or the year before. yearlong ranges’’ in other national forests. Elsewhere in his report, Potter tabulated the When left unmolested by herders and dogs in an area accomplishments of Forest Service personnel protected against destructive animals, a band of ewes assigned to predator control: 269 bears, 129 and lambs will accommodate themselves to the free- wolves, 148 wolf pups, 1155 wildcats, and dom of such a system and will separate into small more than 7000 coyotes killed in the 11 west- bunches, coming together occasionally but again separ- ern states, ‘‘an increase of 109 per cent over the ating. With few exceptions they will graze openly and quietly (Jardine, 1910: 28–29). number of animals destroyed last year’’ and representing ‘‘a total saving to stockmen of Losses will be slight, weight gain and wool considerably more than one million dollars per clip will improve, carrying capacity will year’’.

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 588 Progress in Physical Geography 39(5)

III Conclusions one year to the next, and they were reliant on A CPG of the Coyote-Proof Pasture Experi- qualitative assessments or herder accounts for ment reveals two important insights. First, the some important data. The findings were con- institutional context in which science is prac- founded by sheep breeds, herder practices, ticed may be at least as important as the experi- vegetation types, and other variables, and no ments and findings that the scientists produce. direct attempt was made to assess the impacts Livingstone (2003) has shown the importance of the pasturage system on vegetation. More- of place to the conduct of science, and the geo- over, there were no real controls by which to graphical particulars—both social and ecologi- judge the relative effects of the enclosed pas- cal—of the Wallowa site attracted Coville to ture, the absence of predators, and the absence locate the study there. But the larger context of herders or dogs as factors influencing the was a national one, and, in this case, not only dependent variables (weight gain and wool did it shape the questions that were asked and clip). Estimating the carrying capacity outside define the terms of success, but the success the fence was imprecise, since those herds were caused the institutional context itself to not confined within fixed boundaries. Finally, change, setting in motion a path dependency the economic calculations excluded the costs for subsequent research and management of of the hunter, and did not account for the actual rangelands elsewhere. The particularities of costs of the fence. Virtually every finding looks the Wallowa site were abstracted away so that suspiciously similar to the expectations that the results could be taken as relevant to range- Coville carried into the experiment in 1907. lands throughout the western US. Moreover, Jardine’s reports were not subject Second, although the findings of the experi- to peer review, but only to the scrutiny of his ments were presented as scientifically robust, superiors in the USDA, who themselves appear ecological facts—in which predators, livestock, to have pre-judged the results. There is almost fences, and vegetation interacted in measurable no chance that the experiment would be recog- ways—the methods were weak and the ultimate nized as publishable, or even scientific, if it metric for evaluating success was actually an were conducted today. economic one. Costs and returns, and thus profit The experiment succeeded not on the basis of on investment, determined whether fencing and its scientific rigor, but instead because it lent predator control were worth implementing. In authority to ideas that were already viewed this calculus, the decisive factor was neither favorably within the institutional context that fences nor livestock performance but rather the gave rise to it. Coville and Jardine produced a labor of herders. The high cost of fencing could set of knowledge claims that appeared to con- be justified economically only if the fences form to scientific norms of experimentation: the greatly reduced the need for herders—and in the deliberate manipulation of objects, organisms, absence of herders to protect livestock, preda- and people, and the careful recording and inter- tors would have to be rendered effectively insig- pretation of actions and reactions among them. nificant. What is more, even the economic Most of these primary data were of a broadly analysis was flawed, with key costs either mini- ecological character, and thus appeared as apo- mized or excluded in order to reach the desired litical and ‘‘objective.’’ The results were trans- conclusion. lated into economic terms to assess the By today’s scientific standards, the Coyote- practicability of implementing a similar man- Proof Pasture Experiment was far from impres- agement regime on western rangelands as a sive. The methods varied in several ways from whole, and if the economic analysis was at once

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 Sayre 589 flawed and decisive, this contradiction would be history of US rangelands: Jardine’s Range Man- resolved by government largesse: the cost of agement on the National Forests (Jardine and both fencing and predator control would be sub- Anderson, 1919) was the first comprehensive sidized by an array of federal agencies over the statement of the policies and principles guiding decades to come. Predator control occurred forest rangeland management. It was still in use throughout the national forests and beyond, at his retirement in 1945—having been ‘‘three much of it organized and funded by the Bureau times reprinted without change’’—when he was of Biological Survey under federal legislation described as having ‘‘brought out the principles passed in 1914; fencing was underwritten by the on which are founded the standards of good Forest Service,13 the General Land Office’s grazing practice over the whole western range Grazing Service, and the Civilian Conservation country’’ (Rand, 1945: 2). Sampson’s ‘‘Plant Corps, whose crews built thousands of miles of Succession in Relation to Range Management’’ fences between 1933 and 1942. Much simpler (Sampson, 1919) established range science on and cheaper, four-strand barbed wire fences the basis of Clementsian ecological theory. For were used—rather than the elaborate Wallowa governmental and scientific purposes, respec- design—as hunting, trapping, and poisoning tively, Jardine and Sampson became the princi- reduced predator populations region-wide. pal architects of the dominant paradigm If both fencing and predator control were affecting US rangelands in the 20th century. It already planned or ongoing, and might well relied on fencing and predator control not only have proceeded without ‘‘scientific’’ support, to remake the physical landscape in favor of then the greater significance of the Coyote- livestock production, but also to modify the Proof Pasture Experiment lies in the ways it social landscape, reducing livestock owners’ altered the institutional context itself, and dependence on herders to tend and protect their thereby the trajectory of rangeland administra- animals. In this realm and many others, the pol- tion and research. Jardine and Sampson were icies of the Forest Service benefited some peo- quickly elevated from ‘‘special agents’’ to per- ple at the expense of others, and the agency manent positions in the Forest Service, becom- relied heavily on ‘‘science,’’ howsoever flawed, ing ‘‘the two pioneers in national forest-range to buttress its legitimacy (Rowley, 1985). research’’ (Chapline et al., 1944: 131). Jardine With the creation of the Office of Grazing was promoted to Inspector of Grazing in charge Studies within the Forest Service, moreover, a of the new Office of Grazing Studies in 1910, critical bureaucratic shift took place, apparently overseeing range research and directing the without comment or resistance. The scientific monumental task of ‘‘range reconnaissance’’ challenge of studying grasses, grazing, and ran- throughout the national forests over the follow- gelands passed from the BPI into the hands of ing decade (Chapline et al., 1944: 131). He later the Forest Service, first under the umbrella of served as Chief of the Office of Experiment Sta- the Branch of Grazing and then, after 1926, the tions and Director of Research for the USDA. Branch of Research. There is no indication that Sampson was appointed to head the new Utah Coville objected to this transfer of research Experiment Station (later renamed the Great authority, and perhaps he could not have fore- Basin Experiment Station) on the Manti seen its longer-term consequences. Foremost National Forest, where he worked until 1922, among these consequences was the permanent when he accepted a newly created academic subordination of range research to the Forest post in range science at the University of Service’s core mandate, timber production, and California-Berkeley. Both authored reports in to its corollary imperative of fire suppression. 1919 that rank among the most influential in the What this meant, in practice, was that range

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 590 Progress in Physical Geography 39(5) researchers would be discouraged, if not prohib- of predators on ecosystem processes is contro- ited outright, from investigating the possible versial (Marris, 2014), but there is wide agree- benefits of fire to grasslands, savannas, and for- ment that the consequences of long-term fire ests throughout the West for most of the 20th suppression are profound (Pyne et al., 1996). century. It is impossible to know what might CPG reveals the concatenation of particular have happened had range research remained in events that influenced the Coyote-Proof Pas- the portfolio of the BPI, but there is reason to ture Experiment, while simultaneously illumi- believe that fire might well have been viewed nating the institutional and political conditions in a more favorable light, at least in certain parts that enabled it to have such widespread effects. of the country such as the Southwest (Griffiths, We can then ask new questions about present- 1907, 1910). day issues and debates concerning rangeland The effects of the Coyote-Proof Pasture conservation and management. In recent decades, Experiment extend down to the present and scientists and environmentalists have chal- across literally hundreds of millions of acres lenged many predator control programs, and of rangelands in the US and elsewhere. It con- some extirpated predators, such as wolves, tributed directly to policies of fencing the land have been protected and/or reintroduced in por- into pastures and eradicating predators of all tions of their former species ranges. But fencing kinds in the belief that these measures would is rarely challenged. In view of the history benefit both livestock production and range- recounted here, one has to wonder if restoring land conditions. Fencing has since become predators can only be compatible with contin- ubiquitous and almost unquestioned as a basic ued range livestock production if herding, too, tool of ranching and rangeland management, is restored—in which case fences may no lon- subsidized by US government agencies and ger be necessary. aggressively promoted in pastoral develop- ment projects overseas; Netz (2004), who Acknowledgements acknowledges that the US West was where I am grateful to Kris Havstad, Joel Brown, Brandon barbed wire fencing found its first widespread Bestelmeyer, George Ruyle, and Curt Meine for their use, goes so far as to view it as fundamental to encouragement and ideas over the years; to Rebecca the ‘‘ecology of modernity.’’ Many predators Lave for convening this special issue and inviting me continue to be persecuted by the BBS’s des- to participate; to the many helpful archivists at the cendent agency, Wildlife Services; even those National Archives in College Park, Maryland; and that are not persist only at much reduced num- to George Malanson and three anonymous reviewers for valuable suggestions on earlier versions. bers. Perhaps most importantly, the Wallowa experiment contributed indirectly to institution- Funding alizing range research in an agency whose The research for this article—and a larger book proj- primary mission lay elsewhere, inhibiting scien- ect of which it is a part—was supported by the tific recognition of the ecological importance of USDA-ARS-Jornada Experimental Range and by recurrent fires. The ecological effects of the University of California-Berkeley Committee fencing probably cannot be disentangled from on Research. the other factors it enables or accompanies, such as water development, reduced herd Notes mobility, and land tenure rationalization; suf- 1. No scholarly monograph on the history of range science fice to say that fragmentation is considered a exists. One doctoral dissertation on the topic has been major threat to rangelands worldwide (Galvin written (Heyboer, 1992), and another, more recent dis- et al., 2008). The magnitude of the influence sertation devotes a chapter to it (Pearce, 2014).

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 Sayre 591

Critiques of conventional range science have come pri- 7. For example, replacing the top and bottom strands of marily from scholars working in Africa and Australia barbed wire fences with smooth wire is a recognized (e.g. Behnke et al., 1993), with very limited attention ‘‘wildlife-friendly’’ practice supported by government to the history of the discipline in the US. Many histories conservation programs, but predators are not really the of the Forest Service have been written, some specifi- intended beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the protection or cally about rangelands (e.g. Rowley, 1985) or Forest reintroduction of predators has gained traction—and Service research (e.g. Steen, 1998), but none has provoked controversy—in recent decades, but fence devoted more than 16 pages to range science. One chap- removal has not been proposed as a way of advancing ter of Sayre (2002) recounts the history of range science the cause. in Arizona. The rest of the literature consists of a hand- 8. This last shift was partially facilitated by another set of ful of journal articles by range scientists, most notably experiments, also designed by Coville, which were con- Chapline et al. (1944). ducted concurrently with the Coyote-Proof Pasture 2. The Imnaha National Forest was established on March 1, Experiment by the young Arthur Sampson. There is not 1907, by the combination of the Wallowa and Chenis- space here to explore Sampson’s experiments in detail; mus National Forests, which had been established by I will treat them in future publications. President Roosevelt in 1905. On July 1, 1908, the name 9. ‘‘We traversed, besides the well known parts of the Cas- was changed to Wallowa National Forest, and in 1954 it cades, some of the most remote and inaccessible was combined with the Whitman National Forest to portions, where, traveling largely without trails, we create the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. (Richard interviewed sheep owners, packers, and herders, cattle C Davis, 2005, ‘‘The National Forests of the United owners, and all classes of people; both those who States,’’ The Forest History Society. Available at: favored and those who were opposed to the permitting www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/places/National of sheep grazing within the reserve. We followed the %20Forests%20of%20the%20U.S.pdf (accessed 12 bands of sheep as they were grazing, watched their July 2013). movements, their choice of forage, and the methods 3. All quotations without references are from the records of handling them; observed the effects of both recent of the US Forest Service (Record Group 95) and the grazing and of the grazing of former years; and investi- Bureau of Plant Industry (Record Group 54) in the gated the devastation caused by fires. Areas of the for- National Archives, College Park, Maryland. Copies of est were examined in every stage, from total immunity the quoted documents are available from the author. from fires to total destruction by them’’ (Coville, 1898: 4. Merriam’s memo was accompanied by specifications 7–8). for the proposed fence prepared by Biological Survey 10. Coville may also have been influenced by reported employee, Vernon Bailey, who was also Merriam’s results of fencing out predators to protect sheep in brother-in-law and long-time specimen collector Australia and South Africa. In a 1905 Bulletin of the (Jardine and Coville, 1908). Bailey’s designs for Biological Survey, David Lantz (1905: 23) gave a predator-proof fencing are detailed in Bailey (1907). nearly identical list of advantages, beginning with 5. Smith (1898) describes what is probably the first such ‘‘decreased cost of herding,’’ from a paper read by the experiment, at least the first by government researchers. president of a farmer’s association in Cape Colony, 6. According to USDA data, cattle losses from animal pre- South Africa. dators in 2010 totaled 219,900 head, more than half 11. A clipping of the article, entitled ‘‘New Policy in attributed to coyotes. Although valued at nearly $100 Reserves: Government experiments in grazing them’’ million, this represented less than one-quarter of one and bylined ‘‘Wallowa, Or., June 2’’ is in Coville’s percent of the national herd. Eighty-two percent of papers in the National Archives, with a handwritten losses were calves. Predation by dogs exceeded that note attributing it to the Oregonian of June 3, 1907. by wolves by nearly 270 percent (21,800 to 8,100). Pre- This appears to be in error, however, as no number dation of sheep totaled 247,200 head; of goats, 180,000 of that newspaper was produced at that date. head. In the 11 western states, cattle and calf losses 12. Although the Wallowa experiment did not involve totaled 55,000 head and sheep and lamb losses totaled lambing—that is, the handling of ewes and lambs dur- 119,700. ing the birthing (or yeaning) period—Jardine took a

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 592 Progress in Physical Geography 39(5)

keen interest in the question of whether the pasturage Consequences for Human and Natural Systems. system would also work for this purpose. At first he Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. relied on reports from private sheep owners who had Griffiths D (1907) The reseeding of depleted range and implemented variations along similar lines on their own native pastures. US Department of Agriculture Bureau (Jardine, 1909, 1910, 1911); later he oversaw an experi- of Plant Industry Bulletin 117. Washington, DC: ment in the Cochetopa National Forest in Colorado Government Printing Office. (Jardine, 1911). I have not treated these in detail here Griffiths D (1910) A protected stock range in Arizona. US because the conclusions he reached were so similar to Department of Agriculture Bureau of Plant Industry those reached in the Wallowa experiment. On the crit- Bulletin 177. Washington, DC: Government Printing ical issue of economic returns, for example, the conclu- Office. sion was identical: at 8 percent interest, a coyote-proof Heyboer M (1992) Grass-counters, stock-feeders, and the lambing pasture would pay for itself and produce a div- dual orientation of applied science: the history of idend after six years (Jardine, 1911: 32). range science, 1895–1960. Doctoral dissertation, 13. In the 13 national forests in the southwest region of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Forest Service, for example, 4153 miles of fence were Blacksburg, VA. constructed between 1925 and 1933, at a total cost of Jardine JT (1909) Coyote-proof pasture experiment, 1908. $851,000 (more than $15 million in 2014 dollars); the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Circular agency paid 49 percent of this cost, while ranchers 160. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. paid the rest. Jardine JT (1910) The pasturage system for handling range sheep: investigations during 1909. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Circular 178. Washington, References DC: Government Printing Office. Bailey V (1907) Wolves in relation to stock, game, and the Jardine JT (1911) Coyote-proof inclosures in connection national forest reserves. US Department of Agriculture with range lambing grounds. US Department of Forest Service Bulletin 72. Washington, DC: Govern- Agriculture Forest Service Bulletin 97. Washington, ment Printing Office. DC: Government Printing Office. Bartlett IS (ed.) (1918) History of Wyoming, vol 2. Jardine JT and Anderson M (1919) Range management on Chicago: SJ Clarke Publishing Company. the national forests. US Department of Agriculture Behnke RH Jr, Scoones I and Kerven C (1993) Range Bulletin 790. Washington, DC: Government Printing Ecology at Disequilibrium. London: Overseas Devel- Office. opment Institute. Jardine JT and Coville FV (1908) Preliminary report on Chapline WR, Campbell RS, Price R, et al. (1944) The grazing experiments in a coyote-proof pasture. US history of western range research. Agricultural History Department of Agriculture Forest Service Circular 18: 127–143. 156. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Cotton JS (1904) A report on the range conditions of Lantz DE (1905) Coyotes in their economic relations. US central Washington. Washington State Agricultural Department of Agriculture Biological Survey Bulletin College and School of Science Experiment Station 20. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Bulletin 60. Pullman, Washington: Allen Bros. Lave R, Wilson M, Barron E, et al. (2013) Intervention: Coville FV (1898) Forest growth and sheep grazing in the critical physical geography. The Canadian Geographer. Cascade Mountains of Oregon. US Department of doi: 10.1111/cag.12061. Agriculture Division of Forestry Bulletin 15.Washing- Livingstone DN (2003) Putting Science in its Place: Geo- ton, DC: Government Printing Office. graphies of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago: University DeLuca K and Demo A (2001) Imagining nature and of Chicago Press. erasing class and race: Carleton Watkins, John Muir, Marris E (2014) Legend of the wolf. Nature 507: 158–160. and the construction of wilderness. Environmental Maxon WR (1937) Frederick Vernon Coville. Science 85: History 6: 541–560. 280–281. Galvin KA, Reid RS, Behnke RH, et al. (eds) (2008) Netz R (2004) Barbed Wire: An Ecology of Modernity. Fragmentation of Semi-arid and Arid Landscapes: Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016 Sayre 593

Pearce MA (2014) Discontent on the range: uncovering the Sayre NF (2002) Ranching, Endangered Species, and origins of public grazing lands politics in the inter- Urbanization in the Southwest: Species of Capital. mountain West. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Oklahoma, Norma, Oklahoma. Sayre NF (2008) The genesis, history, and limits of car- Potter AF and Coville FV (1905) Grazing on the public lands: rying capacity. Annals of the Association of American extracts from the report of the Public Lands Commission. Geographers 98: 120–134. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Bulletin 62. Sayre NF (2012) The politics of the anthropogenic. Annual Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Review of Anthropology 41: 57–70. Pyne SJ (1982) Fire in America. Seattle and London: Shear CL (1901) Field work of the Division of Agrostol- University of Washington Press. ogy: a review and summary of the work done since the Pyne SJ, Andrews PL and Laven RD (1996) Introduction organization of the Division, July 1, 1895. US to Wildland Fire, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley. Department of Agriculture Division of Agrostology Rand FV (1945) Agricultural researcher and statesman. Bulletin 25. Washington, DC: Government Printing USDA 4(6) (March 19): 2–3. Office. Rowley WD (1985) US Forest Service Grazing and Ran- Smith JG (1898) Experiments in range improvements. gelands: A History. College Station, TX: Texas A&M US Department of Agriculture Division of Agros- University Press. tology Circular 8. Washington, DC: Government Sampson AW (1919) Plant succession in relation to range Printing Office. management. US Department of Agriculture Bulletin Steen HK (1998) Forest Service Research. Durham, NC: 791. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Forest History Society.

Downloaded from ppg.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on March 3, 2016