Lynnet Bannion wrote:
>Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
>The grassland (at least in temperate regions as here in middle
>> europe) isn't a natural habitat. It is created by the free-range
>> meat and milk procuction
>> - otherwise the areas below the tree-boundary would
>> rather fast turn into wood.

>Where I live (Colorado), grass is the natural state.  Trees
>(other than along streambeds) are the anomaly.  Almost half of
>the U.S. land is suited for grazing, not for agriculture, and can

>only
>grow trees when they are watered by human intervention.
Not every region will be as humid as europe where the natural
vegetation were trees.
As you told, Colorado, and some parts of Africa which we know
from animal films (serengeti...) presently bear grass only.
Probably the natural grass-eaters grazing around there will make
their contribution to create or stabilize such a landscape by
simply grazing the possibly growing tree seedlings.

Grass is one of the newest "developements" in the plant kingdom
and due to its 1-year life-cycle extremely able to adapt to the
harshest conditions.
(I can also tell you from my garden that it is)

My point was, that such a hard environment will probably sustain only
a limited count of grazers (gnus, bisons) compared to the area.
Even if we assume that 60million bisons in big north america.

>Well-regulated
>grazing is more ecologically sound in this region than plowing it
>up, planting corn, and watering it from the fast-diminishing

>aquifers.
100% agree. sahel zone nomad do it too.

Next step was that you could decide to keep cattle on grasslands
for milking or eating it up.
I voluntary step back from milking (or hunting on foot) a bison :-)

Now we got a little more environmental that ethic.

regards,
Amadeus




--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net