|
|
|
 |
Historic Mistake Ranchers are a high-priced luxury Americans can't afford. By Susan Zakin The Arizona Daily Star recently asked readers what they thought about the appointment of rancher Sue Chilton to the Game and Fish Commission. Gov. Jane Hull had chosen Chilton over Paul Krausman, a Ph.D. wildlife biologist from the University of Arizona. A few years ago, I spent a day in the field with Sue Chilton. I liked her. She's got class. She ought to--she's the equivalent of royalty out here in cow country. The Chiltons run a big ranch down in Arivaca. Sue's husband once worked as an aid to U.S. Senate Old West powerhouse Carl Hayden. But there's no doubt Krausman, who has won top awards for his research on mule deer and desert bighorn sheep, is the superior candidate. Chilton's appointment is merely the most recent example of the disproportionate political power wielded by ranchers. The power of this tiny rural elite is truly amazing when you look at how little they contribute to the economy. In 1998, livestock industry receipts totaled $30 million, 1.3 percent of all farm receipts in Arizona, according to the Arizona Agricultural Statistics Annual Report. On average, Arizona farms and ranches lost money, despite an average of almost $20,000 a year in subsidies. Ranches provide fewer than 500 jobs in Arizona, yet a whopping 75 percent of the state is grazed. This business is tanking despite enough federal subsidies to choke a cow. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management's grazing program in the Southwest was losing $1.3 million annually when the General Accounting Office studied it in 1991. Researchers at New Mexico State University have estimated total subsidies to Western ranchers at $400 million annually. Why is ranching such a money-loser? The answer doesn't require a degree in range management. It takes less than four acres to graze a cow in Florida, but 80 or more in arid states like Arizona and Nevada. That's why, by the most generous estimates, less than 5 percent of the nation's beef cattle spend any time on the Western range. How can Western ranchers compete with their counterparts in lusher states like Florida? The answer to this one is equally obvious. Backed into a corner, they abuse the land. Then they desperately fight for government subsidies so they can keep doing it. A century of livestock grazing has had catastrophic effects on the Western landscape. Why hasn't anyone stopped the madness? Some attribute ranching's longevity to "The Cowboy Myth." But ranchers are not free-spirited vaqueros, like the one Lee Marvin played in Monte Walsh. They were the men on the other side of the picket wire in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, rural J.P. Morgans who hired thugs like Valance to protect their interests. These days, many are rich city guys indulging their cowboy fantasies. That Marlboro man hokum is just a smokescreen. My money is on Scarlett O'Hara. "It's the land, Katie Scarlett, the red earth of Tara ..." Land still means something. In the West, 20,000 ranchers control one-third of the land. That's why they have clout. Please note that I didn't say they owned the land. Mostly, they don't. But they think they do. For instance, a recent story on ranching in the Arizona Daily Star ended with this kicker from Sue Chilton's husband, Jim: "'People working together can and will come up with solutions that will work for everyone,' said rancher Chilton. 'Just don't steal my land.'" Reality check. The Chiltons only own about 2,000 acres. Their land would be difficult, if not impossible, to subdivide because of the relative unavailability of water in Arivaca. The Chiltons' cattle graze on 85,000 acres of public land. Who's stealin' who, if I may paraphrase Aretha Franklin? The problem of dealing with ranching in the West is exacerbated by ignorant reporters. A few weeks ago,the Star's "ombudsman," the ever-smarmy Maria Parham, who reportedly spends most of her time redecorating the Star's editorial offices (in pastel shades, I'm sure), fell all over herself doing a mea culpa after the Star ran an op-ed piece critical of Chilton's appointment. Parham excoriated the writer for failing to call Chilton. That was the only intelligent thing in the whole column. What's ironic is that Parham failed to take her own advice, only in reverse. She apparently didn't to talk to anyone besides Chilton. She also failed to do any research about livestock grazing. She airily dismissed environmental concerns by saying, "The soil erosion is possible, I suppose. The ranches are huge." Excuse me. Are these two facts related? Parham completely ignored the fact that Paul Krausman has credentials that, by any objective criteria, leave Chilton in the dust. Chilton is intelligent and gracious. She also distorts science when it serves her interest. I don't think she should be on the Game and Fish Commission. I also don't think Parham should have a job at a newspaper. People in the West deserve better. Larry McMurtry, the son of a Texas rancher and author of Lonesome Dove, summed it up best in a slight but lovely memoir called Walter Benjamin at the Dairy Queen: "In a sense the whole range cattle industry, source of a central national myth, was a mistake ... Looking back on the more than forty years during which I have been involved as a writer with the American cowboy, I wonder if part of what kept me interested was the tragedy, the inherent mismating of beast and place, which was always woven into it."
|
 |
Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives
|
 |
© 1995-2001 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth |
|