Author
 |
SAYRE, N - NEW MEXICO STATE UNIV |
|
GERNANDEZ-GIMENEZ, M - NEW MEXICO STATE UNIV |
|
Submitted to: International Rangeland Congress
Publication Type: Proceedings Publication Acceptance Date: 7/26/2003 Publication Date: 7/26/2003 Citation: SAYRE, N.F., GERNANDEZ-GIMENEZ, M. THE GENESIS OF RANGE SCIENCE WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT POLICIES. PROCEEDINGS OF THE VIITH INTERNATIONAL RANGELAND CONGRESS. 2003. P. 1976-1985. Interpretive Summary: Technical Abstract: At the opening of the new millennium, both range science and pastoral development find themselves in a state of flux. Recent decades have witnessed widespread criticism of pastoral development programs implemented in the latter half of the twentieth century (Agrawal 1998, Ferguson 1994, Hary et al. 1996). Meanwhile, ecological research has cast doubt on the Clementsian paradigm that informed range science and policy for most of the last century (Vesk and Westoby, 2001; Westoby, Walker and Noy-Meir, 1989). The need to reassess and reconfigure both the theory and practice of pastoral/range management is widely acknowledged (Mearns, 2002; Turner, 1998). Curiously, however, little attention has been paid to the historical origins of the range science-development nexus in the United States during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries from which emerged the model for much subsequent development work. As scientists, policy makers, and pastoralists work to find new models, a consideration of this history provides important perspective and lessons for the challenges ahead. First, we examine the origins of range science in the United States from the 1890s through 1950. By the end of this period, range science had consolidated into a dominant (although not unquestioned) theoretical and research paradigm rooted in Clementsian plant ecology; a professional society had been formed; and, a complex but enduring structure of management and administration had been developed for the vast, publicly owned Western rangelands. Viewed historically, the management practices espoused by the new science,including fixed, fenced property boundaries; improved breeding; regulatory imposition of carrying capacities; sedentarization; and, a general orientation toward market production rather than subsistence were artifacts of particular political and economic circumstances in the United States at that time. Nevertheless, they were elevated, ex post facto, to the status of abstract truths that could be applied anywhere and whose authority appeared to transcend politics and context. This elevation helped to legitimate the exportation of American range management practices to much of the world's rangelands in the second half of the twentieth century. Second, we consider the rangelands of Mongolia, whose circumstances today resemble in some respects those of the western U.S. a century ago. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Mongolia has embarked on a path toward a liberalized, market economy and the ownership, administration, and management of rangelands are experiencing dramatic changes. Concerns about current and potential future environmental degradation loom in the background. Many recommended reforms reflect the paradigm developed and first deployed in the western U.S. Curiously, however, some of the paradigm's central components improved breeding; fixed, bounded grazing lands; investments in permanent range improvements, such as wells; and a general orientation toward "professionalism" and enhanced production are not new in post-Soviet Mongolia. They were in fact components of collectivization during the Cold War period, intended to increase production and consolidate state control of resources and people. Comparison of early U.S. and contemporary Mongolian rangeland management and development suggests several conclusions. First, actual range management has not been strongly determined by science in either country. Rather, managers have responded to political, economic and ecological constraints and opportunities, using a dynamic mix of experiential, traditional, technological and experimental knowledge. Second, the quest for universal principles of range management has foundered on both social and ecological shoals. Social factors such as access to credit and markets, land tenure and property institutions, economic and de |
