camp: Greenfire, Idaho
I
think I know Jon Marvel is right, but I still can’t bring myself to agree with
him. Subsidies as a matter of something I pay for have stopped bothering me.
But Eric is right—a subsidy makes otherwise marginal land profitable, causing
it to be ranched when it shouldn’t be. Ranching already has externalities, so
theoretically it should be taxed. But taxes and subsidies get more complicated
when the government is the one selling AUMs in the first place. And I don’t
want to have to tell people their way of live isn’t viable. I’d rather kill a
grassland than look Todd Nash in the eye and tell him the truth. What does that
make me?
So
maybe the solution is a gradual phase-out. Buy out willing ranchers, push for
conservation easements, revoke corporate allotments (because who’s going to
lose sleep over J.R. Simplot?) And I’ve just proposed the most politically
infeasible solution since Carter tried to cut all those dams from the
appropriations bill. But the gradual buy-out, maybe? Why is it so hard to get
Congress to act when the economics are so clear? Ok, I know why, but I wish we
had more fearlessness in Congress. More idealists—a critical mass so they
wouldn’t have to sell out and swap favors to get anything done. More people
like Alan Grayson. And god, I wish they would overturn Citizens United. But
that won’t fix it. The system is inevitably going to work slowly and
inefficiently and that’s ok. But not too stupidly. Maybe the 16th
amendment was a bad idea. Maybe the people have too much power. But…grazing. I
feel like smaller policy changes—fixing the tax incentives for conservation vs.
ranching, allowing smaller cattle numbers to be run, retiring willing
allotments—would help speed up a seemingly inevitable tide. Ranchers are
growing old and getting out. And I don’t want to see the lifestyle go away, but
it doesn’t make sense—economically or environmentally—in the West. Cows should
stay east of the 100th meridian and all of us should probably eat
less beef.
No comments:
Post a Comment