Vagneur: Giving meaning to the Buffalo Commons

We live in one of the areas famous for its official wilderness areas: Maroon Bells-Snowmass; Hunter Frying Pan; College Peaks. In fact, there are 42 National Wilderness Areas in Colorado, but that’s not enough to satisfy our growing national appetite for wilderness experiences. The following ladies of the Wilderness Workshop are to be thanked for their vision and hard work in getting the above areas recognized as official wilderness areas. Dottie Fox, Connie Harvey and Joy Caudill — thank you.

Times are changing and you may now be a little dismayed that you have to make a reservation just to get the bus to the Bells. What do you mean, reservations for the Four Pass Loop? Or why can’t I camp in Conundrum without a wilderness permit anymore? Because we are overpopulated, that’s why. And some of us are not very neat.

I know, I know, you need spectacular scenery to spend the summer and fall, but if you like emptiness and solace, you might want to think about visiting the Buffalo Commons or just think about the Buffalo Commons – or as it is. sometimes called the Big Open or the Big Empty. Never heard of it?

It was an original and conceptual idea to create a vast nature preserve by “returning 139,000 square miles of the driest parts of the Great Plains to native prairie and reintroducing the American bison (Buffalo as it is sometimes called to wrong) which once grazed.” the short grass prairie. The original proposal encompassed ten states: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas. Mainly the eastern plains of these states, or some of the places where the Dust Bowl of the 1930s had its most deleterious impact.

Frank and Debra Popper, an academic/planner couple who dreamed up the idea of ​​the Buffalo Commons, published a paper in 1987 that seemed to inspire many American citizens to think about the possibility of transforming much of the areas below. above it into a great refuge for the buffaloes and the inhabitants. to eliminate agriculture and cattle breeding.

One cannot simply remove livestock and agriculture and expect prairie grasses to return to their original state, although many people believe this. Even in this valley. So, if you want native grasses to populate the Great Plains, you would have to plow up all the non-native blades of grass and replant native grasses and forbs. Does this seem like a daunting task to you? It would be. And there would be the risk of creating another Dust Bowl.

Popper’s article served its original purpose of starting a conversation, but, incredibly, many scholars who envisioned such a transformation were surprised by the reactions of people who actually lived in the country in question. Where thousands of poorly designed farms failed (thanks for your foresight, US government) and people lost everything, the survivors from the 1980s, 1990s, to today, have been totally insulted by the idea that after generations of hardship and love for the land, foreigners were prepared to take away all, or almost all, of what they had worked so diligently for. There was enough incentive for a white-collar worker to say, “This was an issue people could rally around.” People in rural areas don’t always agree, but one thing they certainly agreed on was that Buffalo Commons was bad.

The Poppers’ original idea was to hire farmers and ranchers, through voluntary contracts with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), in which landowners would receive the value of what they had grown over the years. Next 15 years. That done, they would have to plow the “modern” grass, then plant and cultivate native grasses. At the end of the period, the USFS would repurchase its properties, while granting the owners a 40-acre property.

Ironically, it’s hard to believe that these hardy, agriculturally intelligent farmers and ranchers didn’t jump on such a plan. It was better than what the white man had dealt with the Native Americans – but not by much.

Now that many people have thought about the initial prognosis, it seems that vested interests are shaking things up, and no one seems to know for sure which direction the whole escapade will ultimately go.

Why bison rather than cattle? They are almost identical when it comes to methane emissions and benefits to the earth. Or why not bison and cattle? Everyone to his own tastes? Some Native reservations introduce bison into their tribal mix of livelihoods. There are a few very large ranches in the area that could raise large numbers of cattle and bison. Bison are just sexier, I think.

Where this ends up is anyone’s guess, but I’m betting that by the time the planned ecotourism is seen as a revenue stream, the Buffalo Commons will be as common as any of the hard-to-recognize descendants of the former Great Plains.

Tony Vagneur writes here on Saturdays and welcomes your comments at [email protected].

Tony Vagneur writes here on Saturdays and welcomes your comments at [email protected].