Why the Refuge Protestors May Have Been Right
Protests have always been a part of America and this one at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge appears to be no different. Violence and the taking of life when it does not have to occur has also played a part in the protests. It was no different at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
In the past unions, facing company and governmental opposition to their demands have resorted to violence when they found peaceful protests did not work to gain recognition. Frustration on the part of union picketers with the appearance of strikebreakers, the delivery of materials, and the shipment of product eventually led to violent reaction. My own personal experience while attending a seminar in San Francisco found me in the midst of a hotel workers strike at the Sheraton on The Wharf. They were not a happy bunch and spent much time verbally abusing the help or scabs, as they called them, guiding us into the hotel. The hotel business continued. And after the strike? The workers who were working during the strike were let go. Either way, Labor paid.
Illegal and at times legal conduct by any protesting group almost always led to forceful retaliatory action by business, police and the military. The clashes sometimes led to injury and death with the employers, police, and government better equipped than the protestors and strikers. Under cover of the law, the actions of the police and government were just another vindication of employer rights and societal laws. Even in this environment, Labor prevailed. It has changed since those times when Labor was growing in influence. Labor and protesting success is on a downward slope losing ground in each confrontation whether legal or not. Legislatures continually nibble away at unions, worker, and protestor rights.
A Little History and Numbers
I did get into a discussion about the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The history of the refuge and grazing, the diversion of water, the low grazing prices charged ranchers, and the over grazing of land in the early years is mostly correct.
To take over a refuge and federal land, it is hard to understand why someone would risk life and limb to challenge the local authorities, the government, and the military. In any case, it is a sure recipe to lose, go to prison, or die when you challenge the authorities. Especially being armed, and considered dangerous. One man did pay with his life and the rest are under restraint by the authorities. This short commentary is not so much an argument of whether their stance was right or wrong as much as whether it was worth it or the right one to make. By taking over the Refuge, I believe the protesting ranchers left the public with the wrong impression.
The domination of the beef production by the meat packers and retailers plus the failure of Government to react to it has increased the costs faced by smaller ranchers and contributed to the controversy of grazing rights.
With the consolidation of meat packers and the rise of giant retailers such as WalMart, prices for bringing cattle to feed lots decreased forcing cattlemen to reduce cost. Two ways to reduce cost are increase the size of your herds which requires more land or increase the numbers of meat packers so no one meat packer can influence the market.
Smaller ranches have higher costs in production over larger ranches result from the numbers of cattle brought to market. Fewer cattle to feed lots or markets result in higher costs per head. In my opinion, the argument should be made with the government about the consolidation of meat packer market. Grazing rights and the ownership of land by the Federal Government is not necessarily the right argument to make. Whether the Government can own or control land was decided by SCOTUS (Light vs. U. S. and U.S vs. Grimaud) years previously. This came after the Sagebrush wars when the Federal Government started to charge fees for access after land was designated as national parks.
“In 1990 and after a decade of mergers, 4 companies ‘slaughtered and packed 69 percent of US-grown cows’ as reported by University of Missouri rural sociologist Mary Hendrickson. The progress gained by independent ranchers from the passage of such bills as the Sherman Anti-Trust, Wilson’s Clayton, and Harding’s Packers and Stockyards Acts has deteriorated. Today, the top “four meatpacking companies control 82 percent of the beef market — an unprecedented share of the pie.”
The Issue for Small Ranchers
The issue of grazing comes up when smaller ranchers try to increase the size and volume of their operations to gain the economies of scale achieved by the already much larger manufacturing ranches and there is nowhere to do so except expand on to public lands. A small ranch of 20 to 49 head may have a cost of ~$1600/head as compared to ranch of 500 or more with a cost of ~$400/head. The larger the ranch and herd is, the more the spread of Labor and infrastructure cost. To grow your herd to lower the cost/head as determined by meat packers and retail giants, a rancher needs land. What was previously free, was leased to ranchers. The costs of leasing came into question as added burden as well as whether it was constitutional.
Pressure to reduce costs came into play. As meat packers scaled up their industry through buyouts and the addition of capital, retailers such as WalMart did the same through larger operations. Larger ranching operations meant lower cost per head and also per pound of meat. Cost pressure increased all the way down the processing line. Ranchers which could expand did so, and the rest either turned to boutique businesses, sold out, or went out of the meat business altogether. The alternatives were dire.
Even with the expansion of the ranches, the percentage of retail dollar going to ranchers continued to shrink. It was either scale up and continually lower costs or go out of the beef business. Thousands of ranches did either and still those left struggled to get by. To increase competition amongst ranchers, meat packers offered exclusive contacts to buy meat and added contests (increased prices) which promoted heavier chickens or cattle sold, etc . The problem was, no one monitored what the livestock was fed. The smaller ranches who could not compete in this environment disappeared from the market place.
By policy, federal anti-trust regulators funding was cut by Congress. It blocked by past administrations, which were pro-business. they were ignoring the actions of companies using their market power to drive prices (oligopsonistic?) down. Similar tactics are employed by automotive OEMs who squeezed the supply base on pricing, inventory, payment terms (90 days and then late in payment), etc. If you do not like it, then you do not get the business to sustain yourself.
Some Tier Ones such as Delphi, Yazaki, Lear have been able to fight back. Then too some of the same (Delphi) have been forced to curtail their businesses through reorganization. The strategy also changed for antitrust regulators as New America Foundation’s Barry C. Lynn; points out; “since the era of Reagan, US antitrust regulators have focused almost exclusively on whether large companies use their market power to harm consumers by unfairly raising retail prices” and leaving small companies to fend for themselves.
What the Rancher’s Argument Should Have Been
What this strategy does is change the focus to “low pricing to consumers” (think China manufacturing of product) from competitive and fair business practices of meat packers and retailers in the market place. In other words, if it is low pricing to the customers, it has to be good.
Well, past practices of such environments have shown it was not good in the end. Yes the consumer gets a low price; but it is fatal to small businesses and Labor by leaving a concentrated market controlled by a few corporations. Today, the meatpacking industry is about 4 majors having >80% of the business. Industry concentrations were largely put to rest by the Sherman Anti-Trust, Wilson’s Clayton, and Harding’s Packers and the Stockyards Acts. The enforcement of these laws occurring in the past until reinterpreted narrowly by Reagan’s DOJ. This hurt small farms and ranchers decades ago and in the end the consumer with less competition.
This should have been the rancher’s argument. The take over of the Refuge was a distraction. The real issue faced by small ranchers and small businesses. It may have been a reaction of last resort; but, it was fatal to their cause.
What President Obama Tried To Do to Help Small Ranchers
After his election in 2008, President Obama took up the cause of independent farmers and ranchers against the excesses of meat packers.
The beginning was a series of 5 meetings with various farm groups representing cattle, hog and chicken farmers. The USDA was to rewrite regulations. They and President Obama found themselves blocked by a Republican controlled House.
While the Senate supported appropriations for the overall meat industry, the House went full out blocking food stamp and food safety programs. No one wanted to place the poor at risk. In December 2011, the USDA published 4 watered down regulations of which the only full strength regulation eliminated arbitration. In May 2012, the DOJ followed through with a report on the five 2010 meetings detailing a lack of competition. The DOJ went to state:
“It could not act to address these wrongs no matter how outrageous the conduct of the processing companies. Their actions did not amount to “harm to competition.” as defined by the current antitrust framework.” Obstructionist Republicans in the House not only blocked any reform efforts but also any change to the law or USDA regulations and threatened budget cuts to the Department of Agriculture. It would be interesting to discover which Republicans blocked the reform efforts of Obama and the DOJ and came out in support of grazing rights for ranchers.
How the Administration’s Actions Harmed the Ranchers
The efforts of the administration to reform the industry may have caused more harm than good; “documenting the big processing companies’ exploitation of independent farmers” through the five meetings held by the administration” and “then failing to stop that exploitation and retreating in almost complete silence before entirely predictable resistance from the industry, the administration, for all intents, ended up implicitly condoning these injustices.”
The failure to succeed and subsequent silence gave further support to the “processing companies. They were free to take more action supporting their profits within the meat industry. The companies were now free and without opposition.
Furthermore, the raising of hopes and the backing of independent ranchers against big farming business interests frustrated the hopes of the independents who hoped for a fair shake in the open market. Small farmers were left with few alternatives. Some gave up and others chose a more militant reaction forcing the administration to take action against the very ones they were seeking to help. And the Republicans, laughed at the moral failures of the administration.
The rest of the story . . .
References:
Obama’s Game of Chicken Washington Monthly, November/December 2012
Are Monopolies Destroying America
The Oregon Militia Is Picking the Wrong Beef With the Feds Mother Jones, January, 2016
Cattle group alleges corruption in meatpacking industry
Calling it Stealing – What Big Retailers and Meat Packers are Doing to Cattlemen, No-Bull Food News, August 2013
run; I take it you are not endorsing the takeover or the earlier Bundy effort to frustrate court orders. The place for arguing the legalities is in court; not with weapons displayed against the authorities. I, for one, am glad to see the indictments.
Jack:
No I am not. I was talking about protests in general. This one missed the entire issue altogether which I spent a lot of time explaining. A concentrated meatpacking industry driving market pricing (oligopsonistic) and driving the smaller ranchers out of the market. The Bundy group tried to use something akin to it (growth in an operation) by taking over the Refuge. You can do that; but sooner of later, the gov. will get tired of it as well as the surrounding community.
Besides the obvious, there is a lot here to absorb and it looked like many here didn’t bother.
You lost me when you casually mentioned crossing a picket line with the help of scab labor. You really f****** lost me. One reason that labor is losing power in this country is that folks like you give a big middle finger to workers by crossing their picket line. Don’t f****** cross a picket line.
Norwood:
Do you want to stay around Angry Bear? If so, I suggest you change your language. I am a former union Laborer who worked with Tuckpointers and Bricklayers. This entire post was written with a sympathetic eye towards Labor and small businesses. Most people have called the ranchers a nuisance and a threat. I went the next step and explained why they resorted to what they did. The same as Labor, these Ranchers felt boxed in a similar manner.
The surviving occupiers would be sharing a cell with other evildoers in GITMO were I in charge.
It is a double edged sword. Monopolies do destroy competition but we also need big strong companies to compete globally with the likes of China and Toyoya. The problem is the huge corporations have no moral conscious ,have no patriotism or know no borders. They are all about the bottom line profit and dominance of the markets they serve. Do you think that McDonalds, Wal-Mart, CocaCola, GM, Boing, Apple, Smithfield or any large corporation really cares where their product is made. We must create laws and incentives that demand you contribute to our society to be in our markets. The biggest banks that are highly interconnected need to be broken up and not allowed to gamble with our FDIC money… Beware the cozy Hillary Clinton-Larry Fink connection with Blackstone’s huge derivative bubble. Clinton-Fink stink…We need the Balanced Trade Agenda with the variable rate tariff to restore our jobs and economy. Tax breaks alone will not do it.
Run, thanks for an informative article of the problems of the ranchers.
But legal arguments are beyond the reach of most farmers and ranchers. I say this from experience of a simple boundary dispute where you can drop 20 plus. Many farmers and ranchers have second jobs just to survive the adversities that nature imposes.
I had a second job when I was farming and raising cattle; in spite of the fact that when I started, much of land and equipment was already paid for.
beene:
I understand the argument and I sympathize with the ranchers. I can not do is condone the take over. It was a mistake on their part.
Ranching in Harney County where the Malheur Refuge lies should not be depicted as poor little ranchers but big rich ranchers. Here is what has really developed in the high desert.
don:
I think the graphs I posted speak for themselves and small operations are being crowded out by the much larger operations. I chose this particular incident as one to depict as it does get to a root cause, either you grow or get out and meat packers/retailers are driving the prices. I accept your point on their wealth at least until I get a chance to read it more fully. Thanks for inputting your thoughts here..
Never forget that you cannot ever take the law into your own hands.,,Back in 88 I was a very hot Summer as we had a major drought. Willy Nelson was doing free farm aid concerts. I was at Detroit master depot doing 4-5 dealer terminations per day at FNH as many smaller farmers had long exceeded their credit limit. The sheriff would come and pad lock the dealership but America then went from roughly 4M farmers to about 3M as mostly small mom and pa farmers were forced out. Many would call and cry and beg on the phone. Some even went out to the barn to end it all…This was the worse part of my job I ever had I will never forget and I hated it but there was nothing I could do about it. I got to where I did not want to answer the phone and after dealing with a distressed customer I was often shaking myself from fear…Luck today we are in much better farming economy as farm exports are expected to go from about $4B to about $5B per year…
WR – $4 to $5B?? Try $140b.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1847182/aes86_final-3-.pdf
Got to say that these guys took the cake, and while I fully understand the logic of your article, these proto-nazi douche bags were poorly positioned to make that argument…assuming that this was there argument.
It would seem to me that what they wanted is free use of Federal (e.g. other people’s land) for grazing their cattle.
Moreover, as far as I can see from these morans (sic) they are very very far right wing imbeciles who feel that Feds are restricting their rights to do as they please. Sorry I have very little sympathy for a bunch of guys who believe that their rights (come from their guns) lets be clear their first move what to bring the local elected official to People’s Trial for undisclosed crimes against the real Americans.
IF their goal was to illustrate the fact that the Agro-complex was destroying their livelihood — and then they blame the feds for getting in the way.
Sorry AB I don’t buy your argument for one minute. You are completely off track here; these guys want to piss of the Federal government — for what exactly? If you think the Feds should not exist then who the hell is suppose to keep the Agro-complex in check? These guys with their little guns…really that’s the solution?
NLF
I suggest you read the whole post.
NLF:
Dan is right, go back and read it again. I know it is long; but, there are some true points which I bring to bear here.
My argument never stated support for them. I specifically stated what they did was the wrong tactic to take and created the wrong impression.
Actually the increase in farm sizes has been a trend in place for at least a century. 100 years ago 80 acres was a minimum sized farm, today its more like 640 for grain. This actually started with both the factory farms in the Red River valley of the Dakotas and Mn, A second factor was the increase in the ease of transport, The Erie canal began to kill farming off in New England replacing it with upstate Ny. Then the Railroads came and killed off upstate NY farming. Small cattle men get killed off by bigger ones due to the essential fixed costs of an operation, Folks have been forced off farms for over 100 years, take the dust bowl as an example, that land is still farmed but by large operations (mechanization enabling this, with increased mechanization such as gang plowing with tractors etc).
Thanks Lyle for your comments.
Run75441: “I believe the protesting ranchers left the public with the wrong impression.”
This posting was flawed from the start. These protesters weren’t ranchers. In fact of the 100 or so participants, only a couple even have the smallest pretext of being ranchers. Ammon Bundy, the leader, isn’t a rancher. He runs a truck repair business. LaVoy Finicum, who was killed, indicated that he runs a hobby ranch. He said his only income was government funds for housing foster children. David Fry, the last holdout, is a dental hygienist.
These protesters are a mixture of gun nuts, white supremacists, cult polygamists, “sovereign citizens”, and neo-nazis. They are just using the rancher rights issue as an excuse to get together and wave their guns at the despised government.
While your issues about meat packer monopolies is valid, it is an obscenity that you link it to these dangerous right-wing extremists. Real ranchers want to have nothing to do with them.
Thanks BillB. I was going to provide some counterbalance to my colleague Dan and Run’s pushback on NLF. But you did the job for me. These guys were looking for an excuse to execute Sagebrush Rebellion 2.0 and little of it had to do with BLM cow-calf allotments. The Oathkeepers and various so-called Constitutionalists were there with their guns from day one. Which day was back in Nevada a year or so ago. Economic monopoly by large meat packers is not at the root of ANY of this.
Bruce:
Thanks for what??? One sentence which touches upon the focus of the post and two paragraphs which do not? If you look carefully you will see reference to two SCOTUS decisions and the Sagebrush war resulting from the Gov taking over land and wanting fees.
I used it as a platform to get to the issues of the small rancher vs. the meatpacking industry.
Well Bill:
This post is fine the way it is and they did leave the wrong impression of ranchers even if they were not ranchers. You hit upon the smallest portion of my post and dedicated one (1) sentence to the balance of the post which touched upon the meat packing industry and big retailers “driving the pricing” through various gimmicks. Did I say I supported the theme of these protesters? No. Did I say the taking over of the Refuge was the right thing to do? No. Did I say their tactics were correct in making their point? No.
I describe a scenario discussing the true problems ranchers face. Small ranchers do have a problem as shown by the graphs I presented and the detail discussed. The numbers of the are dwindling, the percentage of the dollars going to them is dwindling, and the meatpacking industry is playing them off against each other. Everything you said in the first two paragraphs is true; but so what.
The truth of the matter is the great majority of those who took part in the occupation and vandalism of the Malheur NWR were not ranchers. Lets not depict these people as victims. Leave that up to them.
Don:
Show me where I made them into victims?
“Protests have always been a part of America and this one at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge appears to be no different. Violence and the taking of life when it does not have to occur has also played a part in the protests. It was no different at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. ”
The taking of life that does not have to occur is pretty much the definition of a “victim”. That was your lede.
Your second paragraph counterposes government and corporate “opposition” against union “violence” when any balanced depiction of either the main instigators of violence or the people who suffered from it would show that it was governments and corporations who dished out far more initial violence than even the most violent of counter actions. You just can’t begin to balance union originated violence in such events as the Great West Coast Strike of 1935 as against the more pervasive and much higher scaled violence waged by mine owners vs workers in both the Mountain West and Appalachia.
You may not have wanted to put your thumb on the scale, but word choice is important. Like corporate “opposition” to union “violence”. Who on balance was breaking whose heads?
Power of language: Quick edit version
“In the past unions, facing company and governmental violent oppression of their demands have resorted to determined resistance when they found peaceful protests did not work to gain recognition.”
Gandhi vs Mandela perhaps.
Many are tied to the global elite through backdoor organizations. Neo-Nazi’s, they are not. Not even close.
Most represent the petty-bourgeois as many petty-bourgeois represent the gentile left. Never get caught up in a dialectical “ruses”. When they are talking about “constitutionalism”, they actually mean gutting “government” so the international capitalist can take over the rule of law and destroy nations. That is the whole point. Capitalists used “Marxist” organizations to do that in the 20th century. Much like they used southern farmers in the 19th century to “split America”.
Even Cliven Bundy(which is not his real last name) tipped his hat, “we lost this one”. Damning.
Run – You set the tone on this with your title. You show your bias from word one.
“Why the Refuge Protestors
May Have Been Right”
They were “right”? About what?
BK:
My title could have been clearer. Thank you for your comment.
Run75441,
As for victims, I was addressing all those in the discussion here, not specifically to you.
I see nothing wrong with your analysis as far as the trend towards bigger farm/ranch. The same can be said of all ag. (and virtually every industry). For instance, take the growing large organic farms as small organic farms decline in numbers.
Using the Malheur occupation/vandals as a springboard for the presentation of your analysis opens the discussion to matters that exceed that of focusing strictly on the growth of the big at the expense of the small. Unfortunate because your analysis is valuable as it stands, too bad it was muddied up with specific issues
related to Malheur.
Fair Enough
What was previously free (grazing on BLM managed lands in specified western states) has not been free since 1978. The fee is also based on a formula that decreases if profits decline, but also attempts to rise to be competitive with private grazing [unsuccessfully the public grazing fee is usually around two dollars and the private grazing fee is about 20 dollars per head per month]). The fee also doesn’t have to be paid entirely in cash. 50% of the fees can be “paid” through in-kind maintenance and improvements by the ranchers. 80% of the cash that is received is reserved by law for maintenance and improvements to the properties. The fee is also managed, it can’t fluctuate more than 25% from the prior year.
I’m not a rancher, but what has historically been or or two dollars a head per month, half of which doesn’t need to be paid in cash, and which the government didn’t come knock on Bundy’s door about for TWENTY YEARS after trying to settle his non-application for a permit through the courts, doesn’t seem like an unfair, unreasonable, or improper government takeover to me.
My family has ranched (cow calf operation) in a part of the country where there is no federal land. The economic pressures that you describe are real. They are the product of monopolistic practices of big agra-business. But you go off the rails when you in any way justify the movement on the part of a tiny fragment of the ranching population to respond to these pressures by claiming a right to public land. Our land. Most ranchers couldn’t expand by stealing public land if they wanted to. Of course we already indirectly stole it from the original inhabitants but that is another story isn’t it? This nineteenth century mentality that says that if you need something you clearly have a right to take it assuming you are of the right sort doesn’t really warrant consideration in polite company. I understand that there are pressures and reasons for their actions. Economic pressures force people into a life of crime for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes, or perhaps often those economic forces are unjust. It is still against the law to steal. It is good to shine a light on these unjust economic practices. It is lunacy to endorse in any way the misguided response of these people to that injustice. As you point out, they don’t even seem to understand the source of their misery.
SW:
You have made a nice comment; however, I would encourage you t read it carefully again. If you read it you will see, I quoted a couple of decisions in favor of the Federal Gov. owning land and controlling it as long as Congress does not interfere. I was careful to talk about protesting issues and the right ones. In there I did say the Bundys protested the wrong issue and furthermore created a bad impression of the issues. Which I then went into great detail to describe.
You gotta be a midwesterner. My eastern friend Mark in North Carolina was telling me about the herd he has of cattle. Of course he in the Smoky, a different world all together and a place I spent some time. Thankk you for you comments. I enjoyed the read.
If anything it seems like another giveaway by taxpayers to private parties.
run,
The problem is not that your post excuses the actions of the Bundys. Yes, you do clearly point out that the real issue for small ranchers and farmers, as with all small businesses, is the questionable behavior of the massive corporate businesses, farm and otherwise. Your post would have done well to either leave the Bundy Debacle out of the discussion, or, better yet, point out that the take over itself missed the point and diverted public attention from the source of the problem. If any thing the Bundys were responsible for giving a form of cover to the corporate farms and collusive mega retailers.
Many of the commenters here have fallen into the same trap, so to speak. The focus on the Bundys in the first paragraphs created a mind set that resulted in losing sight of the main point of the post. Tie the pieces a bit tighter in the future.
Jack:
It is a fair criticism. I am a child of the sixties a coffee house (if you remember those) person without the drugs who later enlisted in the Marines in 68. We were the anti-establishment and I still did my part. I never criticized those who did not go or refused to go or skipped the country. We all made our own decisions as to what was right and lived by them. Besides warping my mind from the experiences and poisoning me at Lejeune, the Marines gave me a greater latitude to accept things for what they were and to look out for the little guy. I side with Labor as my dad was Labor, farmers as some of my friends were farmers, people who live in Flint and other run down places like the west side of Chicago (home town).
The Bundys were not right in their pursuit in how they did it and I took the time to rebut their argument of the 14 amendment by citing two SCOTUS decisions which came after the Sagebrush war. Their claim to having a right to graze on this land was not legal as Jack D (attorney friend) felt and I agreed. They would not tolerate squatters and yet that is what they did on public land to which they had no legal claim. Did I state this in my post, no; but, I did cite the SCOTUS decisions. Just my way of writing. I kind of wish small farmers and ranchers would dispute what is going on; but then, they are too busy farming and herding. I liked my friend’s farm and I stayed a while. I was invited down for a Summer; but by then, I had left for Boot Camp. If you look , you will see I said the Refuge take over created the wrong impression. It is there and maybe too subtle.
Still a revolutionary and the conservatives do not like me much. Thank you for your observations and comments.
Maybe we can send the Waltons and the Kochs some nice knit scarfs from DeFarge & Co.
Bloomberg is dropping out of possibly jumping into the presidential race.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-bloomberg-president-2016_us_56ba98f5e4b08ffac12337b9
I suppose this doesn’t eliminate the possibility that he will be a running mate in the Clinton campaign.
As noted by others, farm sizes have been soaring since the late 19th century. In fact, by the time of the railroad and harvester the race was already on. Every aspect of the business has gotten more and more mechanized and capital intensive. This led to serious consolidation and now we have no more beef slaughterhouses than we have car companies. This is really tough on people who want to produce commodity beef at premium prices, just as it is on people who want to sell commodity automobiles. Even Elon Musk knows better than to get into the commodity automobile business.
Some time ago I learned that I live in cattle country. Now and then, in Seattle, the nearest big city, I’d notice Clallam County beef on the menu. I live in Clallam County. I’ve spoken with a few high end Seattle butchers over the years, and, indeed, they get their premium product from my home county. I often wondered why so many small farms seemed to be running a few dozen cattle. I figured it was for family use as I have friends who run a few cows, but not dozens. Apparently, it is possible to make some money this way and get a property tax reduction, but not to make a living unless one is serious about marketing. One local farmer runs cattle and pigs and various other animals now and then and produces premium beef that we and many others buy by choice. She and her husband actual live off of their farm earnings. The doctor I buy my chickens from clearly does not.
Beef was expensive in the 1980s and prices were rising. I remember the consumer protests, and I am pretty sure that the Reagan administration expressed some sympathy with the consumers. By the 1990s beef was much less expensive and has remained so.
Bundy’s group seems to feel that they are entitled to make a living ranching cattle. This is not all that different from an art major wanting to make a living doing art. It isn’t unreasonable, but one often has to make compromises. You can do commodity art and let others deal with the money angle, or you can do boutique art and do your own marketing.
Farmers have been bitching about the people they have to sell to since forever since they almost always have had to sell through some kind of middle man. In the middle ages it was the local loaf-ward or lord. Now it is one of the small number of big beef or grain processors. It sucked then and it sucks now.
Also, I have no idea of why Bundy’s group decided to take over Malheur. I read an article in Science about the takeover, and Malheur was on surprisingly good terms with local ranchers. They were noted for trying to keep the land available for grazing and hunting, and a number of the environmental restoration projects were a win for everyone. Not only would they help various bird species, they would also get the cattle cleaner, more reliable water supplies. If nothing else Malheur was a poorly chosen focal point since locals who might have been sympathetic had no quarrel with the research center.
I have a great deal of sympathy for farmers. The business has bifurcated and large scale farming is no longer something a simple yeoman can do. Food is really an industrial product these days. Science lets us turn energy into plant matter and plant matter into animal matter. The alternative with our world population would not look pretty. There is still a niche for the yeoman farmer, just as Elon Musk and Maserati can manufacture cars, but that path is not the old path. We may mourn it just as we mourn the golden age of cattle drives, but it has past.
THank you for your comments.
WOW, Bill. Two months ago, after reading an article in the Washington Post titled “I’m an Oregon rancher. Here’s what you don’t understand about the Bundy standoff.”, I wanted to write a post on this subject. I planned to title it “Why I support the independent ranchers in important respects.”
The Post article is subtitled “The Obama administration has pushed our livelihood to the brink.” It’s by Keith Nantz, a ranch manager at Dillon Land and Cattle in Maupin, Ore. The article is at https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/08/im-an-oregon-rancher-heres-what-you-dont-understand-about-the-bundy-standoff/.
I planned to write my post from the prospective of an animal welfare obsessive, which I am. What struck me about Nantz’s article is that it addresses the conflict between the ranchers and the EPA, whose interest in this regard is protection of endangered species and protection of habitats for birds, fish, insects such as bees and butterflies, and wild animals such as bears.
I’m an environmentalist, just as I’m an animal welfare advocate. I had never seen a conflict between the two until I read Nantz’s article.
But Nantz’s article suggests what strikes me as a blueprint to beautiful compromise.
And it also occurred to me as I read it that the federal government, with all the grazing land it owns in the West, could play a huge role in animal welfare in agribusiness, by assisting in maintaining and in greatly enlarging the number of independent ranchers who could be serious competitors to Big-Agri. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
I think I WILL post on this, as a follow-up to your post.
Thank you so much, friend, for writing such a comprehensive post on the subject of the real issue that the ranchers present.
Always,
Bev
As a resident of Oregon who has spent considerable time in southwest Oregon and Malheur county – including the town of Burns – I can say from experience that it does us no good to ignore the consequences of extensive cattle grazing on these high desert areas. The majority of this sensitive and unique land is public land (and thus available to public access), that is land owned by all Americans – and managed by federal agencies, including the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service for Wildlife Refuges like Malheur. This lands is intended to serve many uses, including being viable habitat for wildlife and open for use in camping, wildlife viewing, touring, hunting, fishing, etc., thus the widespread support in Oregon for this Monument.
In this regard, it is factually inaccurate – as stated by the author of the Washington Post opinion piece – that the proposal to protect eastern Malheur in Owyhee country as a Monument would end cattle grazing. As stated in the proposal for Monument status, the Monument would:
“Allow working farms and ranches to continue to operate.
See:
http://wildowyhee.org/why-protect-it/ConservationProposal
I just signed the petition, Don. And when I write my blog post here on the issue I’ll include your comments and the link to the petition.
I haven’t read the Nantz piece since in two months but will reread it before I post on the issue. But as I remember it, it makes the critical point that overgrazing will destroy the land and the ranching industry. That was a big part of why I was impressed with the article.
A ridiculous claim of the Bundy crowd is that they overpay for grazing rights. As I understand it the federal government charges less than most private owners of grazing land who lease grazing rights.
But what really drew me most about the article was the writer’s explanation that what really is necessary is that BLM—which is what I meant, rather than the EPA, in my comment to Bill—is that it would make a world of difference if the agency had intermediaries from the ranching community who, like Nantz, do appreciate the conservation interests but also could help the agency navigate what is necessary to consider the immediate needs of the ranchers, such as simply giving them time to adjust to new policies and restrictions.
Me? I’d love to see some of the land continue to be used as a mitigating factor against the horrors of Big-Agri—as real competition to Big-Agri—while absolutely also preserving its fundamental function as natural habitat for so much wildlife.
I really do appreciate your participation in this Comments thread.
Bev:
Ahem, I do not see you as the ranching or farming type. Sorry! 🙂
I really could not say what is fair for grazing. If you scroll down, someone said a cost per head. I would imagine in some years its more fair than others depending on prices, etc. I am reluctant to establish a price to graze and as I said this was not really the issue as it was made out to be.
Damn. How dare you burst my bubble, Bill?!
Bernie’s killin’ it in Livingston County! Seriously. I mean, who knew there were more than about 10 Dems in the whole county? But it turns out that there are! And a majority of them like Bernie!
Don:
Thanks for hanging around. We are most an economics and financial blog which gets considerable attention. It is always good to get some fresh opinions and information.
I guess we should have sent in armed personnel to take care of the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd, too.