Cooperative Environmentalism and the Radical Center of Ranching
This is something Western Democrats seem to do well, compromise.
Environmental issues especially, where you have natural resources that can't fight or present policy on one side and resource dependent communities on the other, compromise is a good thing.
One New Ranch innovation involves concentrating livestock into small plots on a short-term, rotating basis. This technique, thought to mimic elk and bison grazing behavior, has several benefits. Studies show that in many ecosystems short-term, intensive grazing stimulates plant growth without killing vegetation. High livestock concentrations also break up and turn the soil, which encourages the sowing of seeds, prevents erosion, and recharges groundwater by increasing rainwater infiltration. Concentrated herds also deter predators, and the system of short-term rotation allows individual plots to rest for long periods of time.Another New Ranch technique is resting ecologically important areas adjacent to streams, rivers, and seasonal ponds during the growing season. Traditionally, livestock is turned loose on vegetation-rich stream banks year-round. They strip plants that hold stream banks in place, causing erosion and water pollution. Resting ecologically sensitive areas during the growing season keeps adjacent streams healthy and conserves an important source of forage for later in the season when herds need it most.
"Radical center" ranching is still in its infancy and New Ranch principles have been greeted with apathy and suspicion by many mainstream ranchers and sometimes with scorn by hard line environmentalists. In addition, the idea that some lands can serve livestock and simultaneously be restored to their native state simply does not apply to the most ecologically sensitive Western lands.
As anyone who has read Wendell Berry has heard, and I've read a lot of him lately, so I've heard it more than some, it isn't possible or even a good idea to separate communities from the landscape around them. Not that I'm saying any environmentalist is actually trying to do that, but rather than focusing our Dem policies on black/white environmental arguments, we can frame them in as a way of defending small, resource based communities.
Another example from the Great Rocky Barker.
Emmett O'Connell | November 29, 2004 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Even hardcore Sierra Clubbers in the West admit that restoring rangelands to "pre-white guy" conditions is a pipe dream. Cheat grass and other non-native species have so completely taken over plant communities that simply pulling cows off BLM grazing allotments could actually be more environmentally detrimental than beneficial.
Fencing streams to protect riparian zones and adjusting/reducing the number of cattle on a particular allotment in response to conditions, as common sense and "compromise" sounding as these are, can be downright inflamatory ideas to many ranchers if not posed the right way.
Back to the ever-present framing perspective: forwarding these consensus-building approaches as "protecting our natural, family and western heritages" (cleaner streams for catching trout, more sustainable long-term ag, open space protection from condos for Californians, etc.) would be far more effective than selling them as "protecting our environment" (culture war trigger.)
BTW- is the constant mangling of "Rocky" Barker's name intentional? I agree, he is a kick-ass writer- "Saving all the Parts" is a must read on species protection issues in the West.
Posted by: sagesnow | Nov 29, 2004 9:45:14 PM
Rusty v. Rocky? It is not intentional, I am literally that dumb. I too enjoy his writing, thanks for your comment.
Posted by: Emmett O'Connell | Nov 30, 2004 8:31:15 AM
Many of us understand the importance of framing the issues correctly to bring people and communities into the picture, but their is a major problem. How can we create a movement inclusive enough (strong enough) using these framing techniques without offending many of the traditional enviros in the West. Not the conservationists, but many of the more extreme groups and people who might be turned off, sadly enough. If not included in issue framing including the communities and interests of the people, many of these groups will continue to carry on an easy attack by those on the right.
Posted by: derf johnson | Dec 1, 2004 12:59:24 PM
Hi Folks
It is my experience that a large number of environmentalists do separate communities from the surrounding landscape, sometimes through ignorance, but often deliberately.
There exists, in the modern environmental movement, an element that believes in removing man from many landscapes. The Buffalo Commons folks certainly promote that type of landscape. Many wilderness advocates seek to restrict access by promoting closing trails, requiring permits, reducing pack and riding animal permits, etc.
In order to emulate the success achieved in the Owyhee mainstream enviros have to commit to defending the legitimate interests of rural communities and render irrelevant their more extreme comrades. While it can be done, it rarely is done. Similarly folks in rural communities of place have to isolate their extremists. Again atough row to hoe.
It has been my experience that the more extreme elements are often those with the least connection to rural communities. Moonbeam the hippie from Sausalito climbing trees is often matched by Chester Gun-nut from Orange County...both coming in to defend their God-give right to clusterfuck our communities. If you strip away the the Committee to Save XXX and the Militia of YYY you end up with folks who have a connection to community.
Not surprisingly they can often come to wide ranging agreement.
Send the carpetbaggers home.
Posted by: wharf rat | Dec 1, 2004 10:44:49 PM
"How can we create a movement inclusive enough... without offending many of the traditional enviros in the West. ...many of the more extreme groups and people who might be turned off, sadly enough."
Bravo- this is exactly the conversation we need to have if Dems in the West are ever going to ascend to the top. Republicans have mastered this situation- employing sophisticated framing that is inclusive of all their interests while sounding non-threatening enough to the average, apathetic, half-awake moderate voter (ex: "culture of life.")
We ALL need to come together and figure out some common values, translated into frames to share what we stand for with the electorate, that are inclusive and yet devoid of the "people named Moonbeam climbing trees" streak identified by wharf rat.
Not to sound harsh, but the "more extreme groups" can sit back all they want, preach self-rightousness to all those who won't listen, and watch us continue to lose elections- and for what?
Time to wake up and chip in folks... salmon will continue their slide toward extinction and sprawl will gobble up the last of our precious rural open spaces until we figure out how to win.
Posted by: sagesnow | Dec 2, 2004 10:22:20 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
