People all over the world have exciting images
of the American West. It all began in the fifteenth century with the arrival of
the Spanish
vaqueros in the
southwestern portion of what is now the United States. The
vaquero gradually evolved into the
American cowboy. The word cowboy conjures up visions of the open range, cattle
towns, trail drives, and a way of life that has been rich in tradition but
constantly challenged from the time of its beginning through the present day.
Ranching is a way of life that has been threatened by Indians, westward
expansion, droughts, and more recently by environmental groups funded by well
intentioned citizens who live in urban areas. The leaders of groups such as The
Nature Conservancy think that the federal government revoke the grazing rights granted
to ranchers on land previously seized for public domain to form our national
parks and wilderness areas. If successful, these groups could effect more
change in the long heritage of ranching than did the advent of barbed wire
fences. The ranchers and the environmentalists have equally good intentions for
use of the remaining unpopulated areas in our country. Unfortunately the two
groups are so culturally different that there is an apprehension on both sides
that prevents meaningful communication.
Keeping
with the spirit of Manifest Destiny easterners began moving out west shortly
after the Mexican American War. Investors from foreign countries, especially
the British Isles, recognized the investment
potential of open range ranching. All that was needed to become a “cattle
baron” was enough capitol to buy some cattle, build some primitive structures,
and hire a few hungry cow hands. It wasn’t even necessary to buy large tracts
of land as long as water rights could be procured. There were no fences so the
cattle wandered the range and grazed the plains in the warm months then went up
to the high country in the winter. When spring time arrived the cattle were
brought down to gaze the flat lands before being shipped to market.
Montague Stevens, one of several Englishman who
moved to southwestern New Mexico after
graduating from Cambridge,
wrote in his memoir, “The tall gamma grass swayed in the wind like waves on the
sea”. In a ten year period, 1883 to 1893, the ratio of cattle per acre declined
from one head per acre to one head per ten acres. The disappearance of that
much plant life also made the land more susceptible to erosion and arroyos
started to appear where once there were wagon trails.
Another major challenge that had to be dealt
with was sporadic Indian raids. Not all tribes were hostile but the ones that
were cast a cloud of uneasiness over pioneers of the western range. The raiding
parties were sometimes after more than cattle. Women and children were also
taken. The US Army established forts on the frontier in an attempt to suppress
the Indians who were eventually taken to reservations.
After the Civil War new laws were imposed upon
western ranchers by the U.S. Government. Farmers were beginning to use barbed
wire fences to keep cattle off their crops. New regulations were put into place
which subdivided land into “sections”, 640 acre tracts, and quarter sections. Ranchers
were no longer able to use land by acquisition of the water rights alone. They
were required to start homesteading in order to have legal rights to the land.
The principles of land ownership came into being as deeds were issued and
records began to be kept. Trail drives, which had been the accepted way of
moving cattle from Mexico
and Texas to
ranges in western states, became impossible. The days of the open range ended
and ranches took on the form of businesses dedicated to the enterprise of raising beef cattle to feed help feed a nation
of meat lovers.
An important part of a cow hand or sheep
herder’s job was to protect their animals from predators. Coyotes, wolves and
bears were shot and trapped to near extinction. The opinion held by the stock men
was that varmints and livestock could not coexist. The buffalo were gone and
now native carnivores were threatened by the same fate. Concerned citizens
started to realize that something had to change before more wild animals were
wiped out for the sake of what some called progress.
In 1902 President Theodore Roosevelt, a bold
environmentalist of the Industrial Age, established the first national park at Crater Lake, Oregon.
Another early environmentalist and former hunter was Aldo Leopold whose nature book,
A Sand County Almanac written in 1949, received national attention. More and
more land was set aside by the government to preserve forests and wildlife.
Ranchers, however, were permitted to lease grazing rights within the boundaries
of the federally owned and managed property.
After WWII the US Army began taking
land from individuals and establishing large military bases and missile testing
areas. One of the ranchers, John Prather, who owned 108 sections on the Otero
Mesa of New Mexico,
refused to leave his home despite the Army’s orders to do so. Another pioneer
of the environmentalist movement, Edward Abbey, fashioned his novel Fire on the Mountain after the story of Prather’s
stand off with the military. In 1975 Abbey wrote The Monkey Wrench Gang, which is soon to be a motion picture. This
was the first popular novel that dealt with rebellion against
“techno-industrial” society. The book
depicts four people who band together to form an Eco-terrorist gang. The gang
attempts to stop construction of dams, roads and bridges by sabotaging the
projects and the heavy equipment being used by the construction crews. Abbey
inspired some with his bold anarchist attitude and spoke at environmentalist
rallies
The organization, Earth First emerged in the Southwestern United States in 1975. It was the first
recognized radical environmental advocacy group in the country. It wasn’t a
coincidence that their logo was a drawing of a monkey wrench and a tomahawk.
(See illustration).
The idea of rebellious behavior wasn’t
appealing to a lot of people who recognized the fragility of our ecosystems.
There was a need for the formation of groups that would do something for
millions who were concerned for the future of our planet. Today there are
scores of organizations that accept donations and have programs to put
volunteers to work on projects meant to help the worthy cause of conservation.
Like any other organization, environmentalist groups can become more like
large, bureaucratic, non-profit businesses with highly paid executives.
Examination of the larger companies reveals that a disturbingly small amount of
the donations collected go directly to the cause that donors want to support.
The largest environmental group, in terms of
dollars, is The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Like all non-profit organizations,
TNC reports its assets yearly on IRS Form 990. Their reported assets on IRS
Form 990 are $5,636,393,924.00; income; $1,398,742,000.00 and the top executive
pay $349,373.00. An organization with that much money can be a powerful voice
in government or in legal battles.
The modern rancher is also concerned about the
environment. Technology has improved the tools available for the large
corporate cattle businesses as well as the small family owned ranches. To many ranching
families, being good stewards of the land that they own and of the federal
lands their cattle use for grazing, is part of a rich heritage that as been
handed down for generations. However, some of the smaller ranchers fear that
the large, donation based environmentalist organizations want to put them out
of business.
In the 1970’s the first notable advocacy group
for the rights of western farmers and ranchers was formed. The Sagebrush Rebellion focused on persuading
the federal government to give more control of Western land back to the states.
With control returned to the state level the people of the land felt that they
would have a stronger voice in determining the future of the land that provided
their livelihood. In 1981 Ronald Reagan joined the Sage Brush Rebellion and
worked to cut spending for research
on energy conservation and renewable energy resources. Conversation
groups used there powers to lobby against cut backs on projects that they had
worked hard to put into place.
Many issues have been debated by the groups of
conflicting interests in the West but the most emotionally charged issue is the
treatment of wolves. The reintroduction of the gray wolf was so successful in Wyoming and Montana
that this year these two states started issuing permits to hunt and kill
wolves. In eastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico the
reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf is not going well. Ranchers and
concerned citizens have formed groups to justify the killing wolves that
threaten livestock and children. In Catron
County, New Mexico
Graphic signs have been erected that depict pets and livestock that were killed
or maimed by wolf attacks. At the same time the wolf supporters have offered
rewards up to $50,000.00 for information leading to the arrest and conviction
of anyone who kills a wolf.
The biggest factor that divides the factions
in the wolf controversy is difference in culture. The conservationists, who
don’t live near the wolves, are outraged by the fact that anyone would want to
harm the beautiful lobos. The
ranchers who killed them off in the first place contend that the
conservationists don’t understand how destructive a few wolves can be.
Suggestions have been made that the folks that sympathize with the wolves
should take a few home with them. When mistrust and differences of opinion
reach the point where communication ceases, minds close and hostility begins.
This holds true for many important issues that divide America today.
All of us who choose to have a voice in the
controversies plaguing or county need to set our sights on compromise and unity
rather than defeat of the folks on the other side of the arguments. Hopefully
we will soon see through our petty differences and learn recognize the greed
that motivates the leaders of the some large organizations. We need to remember
that we all have good intentions and, because of cultural differences, a
concerted effort needs to be made to develop common a language that is free
from offensive cliches and name calling. If each side says, “Things will be
alright when the other side agrees with our side” then the intellectual
quagmire will deepen and thicken. We need to reassess the long accepted
practice of blindly throwing money at organizations that may be deceiving us by
their appeals to our emotions. It is almost as if donating money has become a
penance for the guilt that has been put upon us by a handful of zealots who are
more devoted to personal gain than their purported desire for morally correct
solutions. If we resolve that mediators are needed then we need to become the
mediators. We need to be ready to accept compromise so that peaceful solutions
between agrarian and urban agendas can be reached. Such harmony is difficult
and will take a concerted effort but it is necessary for the survival of our
natural heritage.
One seemingly insurmountable obstacles in ever reaching any any kind of rational agreement on the use western land is the fact it is owned by the BLM (aka US government). Our only chance would be if somebody like Roy Rogers ran the BLM and would kick out all the villainous government goons and turn it over to the virtuous ranchers.
