A Heritage That Deserves No Protection

US Representative Steve Pearce (R-NM02), the Republican sacrificial lamb candidate for Pete Domenici's Senate seat, recently offered up a bill in the House that would do away with all wilderness study areas in Dona Ana County.  Pearce is doing this at the behest of People for Preserving Our Western Heritage, a group of ranchers, chambers of commerce and developers, who oppose the work of yet another group, the Dona Ana County Wilderness Coalition, which seeks to declare over 300,000 acres in Dona Ana County "permanent wilderness" - an extremely restrictive and protective designation.

Rep. Pearce and the ranchers are unlikely to get this legislation passed, as NM Senator Jeff Bingaman is already on record stating that there's no way the Senate will even look at it.  But aside from being a ploy to shore up business support for his Senate campaign, Pearce's legislation is a good example of the type of battles constantly being fought in America's Western states.  And it gives me a good chance to highlight just how utterly destructive to Western lands historic federal government practices have been.

                                     

The image on the left was taken by Mike Hudak at Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona.  The other image was taken by Hudak just a few miles away, on land that is open to cattle grazing.

                                       

Here's another comparison to make.  The photo on the left is of the mouth of Dog Canyon just a few miles south of my hometown.  I've never seen this part of Dog Canyon look any other way, even after rains.  The other photo is of Otero Mesa, which is approximately 20 miles southwest of Dog Canyon.  The difference is that the Tularosa Basin was overgrazed, while Otero Mesa has been managed much more carefully. 

When people talk about the importance of environmentalism in the West, when you hear that McCain has - or is seeking - credibility on these issues, don't be deceived into thinking that protecting the rights of ranchers to spend $16.20 a year for each animal unit (cow & calf, one horse, five sheep or goats) to graze on our land has anything to do with environmentalism.  That's $16.20 a year for enough forage for each animal unit.  Alfalfa hay bales are sold in New Mexico for $7.50 each; a single horse, for example, tends to need a half-bale every day just to keep up with minimal dietary needs.  Not a bad deal for the ranchers, is it?  And if they overgraze an area, destroying the habitat, that's the BLM's problem - or rather, our problem.

The "Western heritage" that the People for Preserving Our Western Heritage mean is the grand tradition of treating the Western United States as our personal plaything.  This heritage is that of wetlanders who erroneously and arrogantly thought that since the American West doesn't consist of wall-to-wall lush vegetation, it's empty and of no value until human beings torture it into producing a few bucks for them.  This heritage is the one that justified the slaughter and displacement of indigenous populations because they weren't "using" the land, the same heritage that produces all the dry so-called rivers in Arizona, the transformation of grasslands into desert, the one that produces drought conditions that make what recently happened in Atlanta look like a sad joke.

It is true that ranchers and developers have a long history in the American West, a history that is celebrated in American popular culture even today in the ways we romanticize the Old West.  But in spite of all this, it is an ignoble history, a shameful story of short-sighted exploitation in favor of a very few at the expense of the very many.

It's difficult at times to remember that GOP governance means more than endless wars of conquest, intentional incompetence, massive government corruption and the use of this nation's coffers as private credit cards for the wealthy.  It also means the radical and rapid destruction of the ecosystem, literally changing climate patterns in order to provide a miniscule part of our food supply. 

Restore civil liberties, get out of Iraq, stop incessant belligerance and saber-rattling in our foreign policy, restore and improve the regulatory regime on everything from our food supply to factory emissions, and try to protect public lands in the West from continued, destructive exploitation.  So much work to do, and the foregoing was only a fraction of what needs to be done.  Damn Republicans.

Comments

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

These ridiculously low grazing fees seem like a pretty intense case of corporate welfare. At minimum, we should really charge the ranchers more.

[Sir Charles]

But . . . they're brave and manly ranchers, rugged individualists all. Surely they can't be recipients of welfare.

[ari]

Charles is right: you people are filthy hippies.

[KathyF]

When the environmental costs of eating meat are pointed out, people invariably comment that it's okay to eat grass-fed beef, raised on marginal land that's unfit for anything but grazing anyway.

Thanks for this photo evidence that grazing isn't such an environmentally friendly way to raise beef either.

[litbrit]

What an excellent post. You're right, Stephen, far too many people are caught up in that whole notion of "cowboy supremacy/manifest destiny" as well as the grasslands and desert lands being somehow lifeless, as opposed to what they really are: amazing, rich, and very fragile ecosystems. Ecosystems that work in conjunction with the climate, the state of which, in turn, affects the whole nation. (I won't go into the benefits of vegetarianism angle; suffice it to say I agree wholeheartedly with KathyF!)

[Stephen]

Thanks for this photo evidence that grazing isn't such an environmentally friendly way to raise beef either.

Certainly not in the western US. Ranching can be done in an environmentally sustainable way in other parts of the country - not that it always is, only that it's possible. My Grandparents never had to reseed their pastures when they were raising cattle, and they also refrained from cutting down the timber stands on their land. They simply bought some land, worked out how many head it would support, and then built up a herd of slightly fewer animals.

The beef raised on BLM leases accounts for less than 2% of total US consumption. Eliminating the practice, or at least restricting it so that grasslands are preserved - which would probably amount to the same thing - wouldn't drive up the cost of red meat that much. It really is about preserving the romantic image of the cowboy on his horse, smoking a Marlboro and squinting into the sunset.

[Scott K]

It really is about preserving the romantic image of the cowboy on his horse, smoking a Marlboro and squinting into the sunset.

Funny, I would think that most cowboys these days smoke Basics or some other generic cigarette.

I admit to being an omnivore, though meat makes up a relatively small proportion of my diet (and beef an even smaller proportion-- I'm more of a seafood guy myself), but I always buy my beef from my local organic grocery, because I know that it comes from a sustainable farm about 35 miles away... their practices are such that they are able to produce free-range, organic beef without overgrazing. One significant difference there is the fact that they own the grazing land, so they do have incentives to maintain it for the forseeable future. When you can use land for grazing purposes for a cheap fee without assuming ownership, it isn't surprising that you might not be as concerned about taking good care of the land. Kind of like renting a car or something!

Interestingly enough, a friend of mine who couldn't care less about organic produce or sustainable food winds up getting his beef from the same place I do, simply because it is of much better quality. Unfortunately, there are probably a lot of people out there who can't afford the price premium.

[minstrel hussain boy]

most horsemen don't smoke while mounted. all it takes is one stray ember on the horse's neck, shoulders, or rump and you are eternally cured of that stupidity, if you don't manage to start yourself a wildfire. smokes are for sitting or walking. if you have to dip or chew you can do that while mounted.

the difference between the ranchers is huge. the guys who have been ranching for generations (like the white mountain apache and their mormon neighbors) know how to manage the herds, and the land. the guys who are doing the damage are guys who buy stock on the chicago markets, hire agents to contract a few drovers for minimum, or less than minimum wage and send them off into public lands to eat for free. overgrazing does incredible damage to the land. mr. suh is absolutely right