(Originally appeared in the Telluride Daily Planet on 04/07/2005)
Libertarians on Livestock
Dear Editor,
The National Wildlife Federation is attempting to remedy a long-standing conflict. For years ranchers have purchased the right to graze their livestock on public lands (allotments) adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. When wildlife from Yellowstone wander onto these grazing allotments, conflicts result as ranchers naturally want to protect their investment. Consequently, they demand that the government remove the grizzlies, wolves or buffalo that threaten their stock. NWF has come up with a plan that makes sense for both ranchers and wildlife.
"The NWF is attempting to offer ranchers a cash payment to relinquish their grazing privileges on allotments where chronic conflicts with grizzlies, wolves or buffalo occur. Ranchers can use the payment to find grazing in an area that doesn't have these conflicts. The allotment then becomes secure habitat for wildlife and allows wildlife to safely range outside the park without coming into conflict with ranchers and their livestock," offers the NWF.
The San Miguel County Libertarian Party would like to applaud the NWF for this common-sense solution to an important environmental issue. Instead of lobbying for government authoritarianism to initiate force against these private ranchers, the NWF is using the libertarian principles of the free-market, free choice, and nonaggression. Citizens concerned for the wildlife around Yellowstone National Park should contribute to this NWF project.
What is even more desirable would be for the federal government to sell the land to the NWF or another conservation organization, like The Nature Conservancy, for wildlife preservation. Weaning ranchers off tax-subsidies and selling public land to homesteaders, instead of grazing rights on allotments, would also help significantly in the preservation of land from overgrazing in the West.
As Dr. Mary Ruwart explains in her book, "Healing Our World in an Age Of Aggression," whenever people do not pay the full costs for something they use, they have much less incentive to conserve. When subsidies decrease, conservation automatically follows.
Homesteading is a way of creating wealth by improving previously unused land by clearing it for agriculture, fencing it for grazing, making paths for hikers, building a home, preserving the ecosystem for tourism, and such. Much of our country was settled this way, but on 42 percent of U.S. territory, the government prevented homesteading.
We often equate wealth creation on rangelands and in forests with their ultimate destruction. These natural ecosystems, however, are renewable and sustainable if they are properly cared for. Individual homesteaders or owners have incentive to do just that, because they will profit most if the creation of wealth is able to continue year after year, especially if they wish to leave wealth to children.
The incentives are very different for the congressional representatives who oversee the Bureau of Land Management. In efforts to keep their elected positions, they will legislate the sale of grazing rights to ranchers, their constituents. These ranchers are not assured the same public range every year, however. They cannot pass it on to their children. They cannot profit by taking care of it. They will likely overstock the government lands, even though they carefully control the number of cattle on their own. Because the ranchers and their representatives cannot profit by protecting the land, they have less incentive to do so.
Had ranchers been permitted to homestead these lands in the first place, the rangeland would now be receiving the better care characteristic of private grazing. Our consent to government 'command and control' solutions has taken the profit out of caring for the environment. When this aggression is even partially removed, the situation improves.
For example, in 1934, Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act to encourage ranchers to care for the public grazing land by allowing them ten-year transferable leases. As a result, almost half of the rangeland classified as poor was upgraded. In 1966, leases were reduced to only one year, giving ranchers less incentive to make improvements. As a result, private investment in wells and fences in the early 1970s dropped to less than a third of their 1960s level.
For a thoughtful, well-documented explanation of these concepts, please see Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression by Dr. Mary Ruwart. SMCLP supports the many nongovernmental preservation organizations that purchase lands for conservation through private donations and non-aggression and encourage others to support them.
Sincerely,
The San Miguel County Libertarian Party