Darrel, et. al.
I appreciate the insights from your perspective, and respect your point of
view. I don't think it is in the nature of BOO readers to make enemies just
because they might disagree with someone--certainly not in my nature. I believe
that our society needs a wide variety of viewpoints, so that as it evolves (or
devolves), it can accommodate change.
My perspective comes from a different end of the spectrum from yours--that of a
scientist/physician turned environmental activist. However, my ancestors are
firmly rooted in the west. One of my grandfathers was a logger who worked for a
large logging corporation near Spokane, Washington and was poor his entire
life. My other grandfather was a forester for the USFS, and a man who inherited
land that his relatives homesteaded near Stevenson, Washington.
Change is most difficult for people who are comfortable with their way of life.
Change, whether good or bad, is perceived as a threat. The blame often is put
on the messenger rather than on the root cause. Environmentalists were blamed
for shutting down logging mills, although the immediate cause was the
extinction of old growth forests. Likewise, environmentalists are blamed for
the ills of the ranching industry, when the immediate cause is unsustainable
grazing practices. The root cause in both cases, though, runs even deeper--the
world's ever-growing human population is unsustainable.
Litigation is often bad-mouthed, but I can tell you that using the legal system
to change or correct government overreach is incredibly better than using the
threat of force at gunpoint. I do not believe in violence, or threats of
violence. If I see the government taking illegal action, I bring the rule of
law -- yes litigation -- to provide protection for those amazing complex trees
and forests that you so elegantly spoke about, and all the wildlife, and
ultimately the people whose lives are dependent for their existence.
I could elaborate a lot more, but then I would bore everyone, so I've said my
piece and hope to keep the peace.
Now lets go enjoy those birds that live in the forests and sagebrush sea while
they still exist!
Cheers,
Craig Miller
Bend, Oregon
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 30, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Joel Geier <joel.geier@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Darrel and All,
Before giving my own comments, here's a quick plea to anyone who might be
inclined to reply to Darrel's long and thoughtful essay:
PLEASE don't include his whole message in your reply, or BOO will end up
cranking out an excessive number of digests per day!!!!
That said, thank you Darrel for sharing your essay with this group. I had the
privilege to read this some years back and I think it still holds up pretty
well today.
Seeing Ed Schmidt's comment, from the link I guess his point is that the
refuge takeover was really about the "land transfer movement" which is only
indirectly linked to, though partly fueled by, some of the issues of rural
alienation that you bring up in your essay. The stated goal of this movement
is to transfer federal lands to state control, though many believe that this
is just a "stalking horse" for privatization of most public lands. It's hard
to imagine that disaffected ranchers such as the Hammonds would be any
happier with management policies that would be supported by the majority of
Oregon voters.
But I'd like to point out a different angle that doesn't come across very
well in your essay:
Most Westerners today are not direct descendants of pioneer families who
crossed the plains "battled the wilderness" and have passed on the land from
generation to generation. Multi-generation farms are the exception rather
than the rule -- so exceptional that we see signs for "Century Farms" that
have stayed in operation under a single family for more than 100 years.
If you read the obituaries, it's always striking how many rural Oregon
residents come from the upper Midwest -- Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and the
Dakotas. Many come from families that moved here during the Great Depression,
World War II or shortly after the war when there was incredible turnover in
land ownership and farming methods.
Some of these latecomers succeeded, but many wound up as marginal operators
or left farming/ranching for other careers. No doubt some of the failures
were due to differences in management skills, but some were victims of a deck
that was stacked in favor of the earlier arrivals: the first-come,
first-served system of water rights, access to the best land, access to
capital, influence in local politics etc. Peter French (of Frenchglen fame)
was one of the earlier arrivals who made full use of these advantages.
In some cases, violence was also a factor in making sure that latecomers
didn't succeed. See for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheepshooters'_War
and for that matter, see also the account of Peter French:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_French
If you pay attention to the background of the farmers and ranchers who wind
up in conflicts with federal land managers nowadays, it's striking how many
are among the "latecomers."
For example, the Hammond family purchased their ranch next to Malheur NWR in
1962, when the elder Hammond was about 20 years old. Adrian Sewell (the one
individual who showed up to renounce his grazing permits) has only been
ranching in the West for a few years, after moving from central Texas to New
Mexico in 2013.
The Klamath "water wars" provide another example. The main group of farmers
who were impacted by the water crisis of the early 2000s were those whose
families had bought into the Klamath Project lands. The Klamath Project
started in the early 1900s through the 1920s, but many farming families
didn't arrive there until the 1950s. As holders of "junior" water rights,
they were the first to have their irrigation water turned off, and they soon
became the most militant.
So I suggest a more careful reading of these events. Everyone likes to
complain about the government, and in rural areas, it's easy to find people
who will complain about "urban elites." But there are also systemic, historic
inequities between neighbors that continue to fuel these problems. It's
possible to have sympathy for farmers and ranchers who are struggling, even
if we don't necessarily agree about who should be blamed for their problems.
Agriculture in the West has always been in flux, and just about every region
(except possibly the Kansas wheatlands) has seen great shifts in the dominant
crops over time. Whole industries have come and gone on the scale of decades.
Beef production based on cheap access to public-lands grazing might be just
the latest one that has reached the end of its run.
Going back to Oregon's Century Farms: According to one agricultural historian
who looked at the records, the single main similarity was that most of them
were diversified operations from the very beginning, not relying on just a
single crop or product. They've found ways to adapt by shifting between
crops, as markets have changed.
There's a lesson there for beef ranchers. I know a few of them have already
figured it out by finding ways to diversify their operations, in the
direction of gaining income from wildlife habitat and welcoming urban
visitors.
--
Joel Geier
Camp Adair area north of Corvallis
