Molly & all,
That's a fair point although you'd need a lot more people than the 200
or so folks on the BOO list to sign on, if you wanted to make a positive
impact for sage-grouse .... especially considering that many of the
folks who've spoken are long-term vegetarians, and I'd guess that most
of the rest of us have already ramped down beef consumption
considerably.
Milk production by from sage-grouse country is close to negligible, and
beef production from grazing on western ranch land accounts for only a
very small percentage (I forget the number but it's in the low single
digits) of total U.S. beef production. So reducing the market for either
of these commodities seems unlikely to significantly affect cattle
populations on range land. At this point (and speaking as a born &
raised beef/dairy farmer who's paid attention to the industry and its
economics), public-land ranching is more of a cultural institution than
a market-based industry, not really responding to elasticity of supply &
demand for the product.
If everyone in the U.S. were to reduce their beef and dairy intake
(which seems to be the general trend for dietary reasons, but it's a
slow process), it might have a bigger impact in terms of preserving
habitat or allowing restoration for midwestern prairie birds, and
perhaps some places in California. My hunch is that eliminating the corn
ethanol subsidy would produce much more immediate benefits for the
former category.
It would be interesting to see where eastern Oregon alfalfa (and other
hay) ends up, since that is one type of agriculture that eats into
sage-grouse habitat. At the risk of offending any horse lovers on the
list, sourcing of hay might be something to think about. I guess I'm as
guilty as anyone since I'm "importing" alfalfa to get our three pet
sheep/woolly lawnmowers through the lean months. But I think most of our
hay is exported.
Bottom line, trying to help sagebrush-country wildlife by eating less
beef on an individual basis ends up being something like recycling. It
can feel good to do it (and I'm a "religious" recycler and re-user who
will keep doing it) but realistically the impact on world markets is
minuscule. So as an environmental policy, it tends to fall short on the
most urgent goals. Certainly good to do, but my belief is that we need
to talk about other parts of the solution that could have a much bigger
impact, and sooner.
Joel
On Sat, 2016-03-05 at 17:15 -0800, M. Luna Iris wrote:
Of course, if we all ate less cows and drank less milk, there'd be
less demand on public and private lands both for pasturage. There is a
supply/demand piece that lies behind the management part of the
picture that was addressed so well in the High Country News article
that Joel mentioned above. I think it's important as people who care
about wild places to also think about our own complicity and not just
those factors that we cannot directly control such as Wildlife
Services, hunters, ranchers, BLM, ravens....you name it.
Molly L. Iris, M.S., CCC-SLP
