Secretary Norton and Johanns gave themselves big pats on the back last week for being at the helm of the first year of an increase in wetlands since records have been kept. The key to the succesful increase in wetlands has been hard work and dedication. It took a lot of work to count those extra "ponds and golf course water traps" which pushed the wetland numbers out of the red and onto the green…
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was released today (3/31). In June of 2005, the Bush Administration released a version of the FEIS with some very important omissions. The BLM’s scientists concluded at the time that cattle grazing can have serious adverse effects on wildlife. These conclusions were rewritten to be “beneficial to animals.” Thus, with the “new findings” in the 2005 version, restrictions to livestock grazing on public land, it was proposed, should be limited.
Well, it looks like the Administration is just up to it again. Some greater safeguards must be present preventing anyone from knowing about omissions this time?
“The NCBA Cattle Update: Ranchers Encouraged by Grazing Regs” describes how the new FEIS could “help sustain ranching on public lands.” Jeff Eisenberg says “But the regulations must also allow for managed grazing and appreciate the important role ranching plays as one of the economic backbones of our Western communities. We’re hopeful the regulatory system will recognize the contributions of ranching to the management of these lands.”
When one is over one’s head in cowshit, one can’t see the truth or the absurdity. The ranching community and its proponents are just that. Welfare ranching sucks money from the government at every turn and then causes long-term environmental damage and loss of wildlife. When are the American people going to wise up and stop paying for it?
The cow rhetoric makes dupes of us all.
Dirk Kempthorne admitted the embarrassing fact that he has a lot of reading to do (Statesman, 3-25-2006). This leads to the natural question of what has he been doing all these years? To help him meet his newly formulated goal, I’ve constucted a nice long reading list for him. Below are the first three books on the list that I’m forwarding to future Secretary.
In case, he has trouble understanding the key arguments in the first reading, I will suggest that he talk directly to one of the key players in the WWP organization.
1. Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the West
2. Sand County Almanac (Outdoor Essays & Reflections)
by Aldo Leopold.
3. The Monkey Wrench Gang (1975) (ISBN 0397010842) by Edward Abbey.
Stories like this cause me to vituperate and with jusification. The Custer County Board of Equalization clearly did not uphold the law when it denied the previously exempt status for property taxes for Western Watersheds Project (Idaho Code Sect. 63-605(2). This is a classic case of how public officials use their positions to advance their own political ends rather than performing their duties with the integrity and ethics that are required. A life-size Golden Cow Flop Award ought to be sent to Wayne F. Butts and I will personally deliver it.
Good work to Marvel and Kinghorn for following the rules and prevailing. This is indeed another victory for WWP. Congrats.
Pooh to the BOE, shame on you.
Many questions are twirling about who will pay for the "management" of wolves once they are handed over to the states. I’ve got a simple answer that I hope might make things easier for everyone involved: Ranchers
Who is responsible for killing off the wolves in the first place? That might be a reasonable place to start looking for the money…
Our state representatives are unabashedly representing the ranching interests, despite public outcry, when they make management decisions anyway. So long as this is the case, it seems befitting that they be the ones to cover the costs of such "management". I sure as hell am not comfortable with footing the bill to exterminate this beautiful animal.
I own a small business and when my product is harmed as a result of the natural environment I don’t get to go running to the government asking for a handout. This risk gets absorbed into the market cost of my product and service. Maybe it’s time we ask the ranchers to participate in the free market (Isn’t that a preciously naive statement for me to make?). Much of the "management" seems aimed at granting ranchers some self-declared right to practice their "business" (i.e. subsidy/welfare venue) in a risk-free environment. Is there some form that I can fill out to enjoy the same level of government dependency? If so, let me know… Seriously, I wouldn’t even mind wearing a cowboy hat to get it…
