Range Wars Flashcards
From the economic liberalism view, explain how to fix the Tragedy of the Commons, clarifying how their fix stops overgrazing
The fix: Finish the job of privatization
how it’ll stop overgrazing:
- private landowner: they take on job of excluding other. Removes other people from using land
- will not undermine their own property: landowners wont add more livestock than carrying capacity.
- maintaining sustainability to maximize long term profits: stay within carrying capacity to keep making more profits. Now they wont overgraze.
From the economic liberalism view, identify the land ownership/use on public lands that would bring the highest public value and explain why
need to fully privatize the public lands and allow private led management of these lands because that will ensure that those resources bring the highest public benefit.
privatization owners private owners will use the resources the most profitably and efficiently,.
When they do this they maximize their profits so much so that they are able to invest in and expand their businesses allowing people employment and taxes.
From the technocratic utilitarian view, explain how to fix the Tragedy of the Commons, clarifying how their fix stops overgrazing
fix: State ownership and Direct management, the state asserting its ownership of those resources and managing them the way they are supposed to be managing them
How stop overgrazing:
- the state will take on the job of “excluding” non permitted users and the state will manage for long term benefits
- enforcing limits, implementing sustainable practices, and actively managing the land, the state can prevent overgrazing
From the technocratic utilitarian view, identify the land ownership/use on public lands that would bring the highest public value and explain why
state ownership and state management ensures the highest public value, the best result for society
why:
- long term conservation, where you are managing for the maximum sustainable yield, not short term profits
- they can distribute the benefits to the many, not just the few (not just private businesses)
- able to protect the resources for future generations
- protecting the little guys (small business. small landowners), the state can protect their access to the use
- can support multiple use, public lands aren’t just use for grazing, the state understands that public lands can and should be use for a wide range of activities and benefits (wildlife, Recreational
To explain how and why the tragedy continues today, explain the arguments that the BLM is 1) understaffed; 2) too timid; and 3) exploiting a regulatory loophole
-understaffed: there are not enough BLM people out there for us to be able to do our jobs right and manage those public lands. so many specialists have to be on the job.
- Fear: let them overgraze over fear for saftey.
Loophole: The BLM is reissuing permits before the environmental review is being completed.
Identify which fix the US chose to adopt, and explain the main reasons that it made that choice
Technocratic Utiltarianism
Why: Small ranchers feared take over by large ranchers
Public sentiment: anti large scale ownership and industrialist
Anti monopoly.
Clarify the difference between right and privilege, and why that distinction is critical in grazing systems
right is given. Privileges can be revoked. Grazing is a privilege, not a right. Can be revoked if you don’t follow the rules
Identify the state’s main management goal, and the 4 key parameters it controls through the grazing permit
main goal: maximum sustainable yield: set stocking rates at maximum (carrying capacity)
allocation of permit,
allotment perimeter
stocking rates
seasons of use (entry/exit dates)
Explain why the techno-utilitarian fix did not resolve the tragedy – identifying specific weaknesses in the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act
1943 Taylor Grazing Act maintained the status quo of grazing practices without addressing the need for sustainable management. By sticking to historical use patterns and not giving the BLM explicit authority to control stocking rates, the Act did not solve the problem of overgrazing and land degradation, which is central to the tragedy of the commons.
Explain two main ways NEPA (post-court case) and FLPMA have strengthened environmental managers’ power
- NEPA(fed public lands): must assess impacts and alternatives for all land uses. EIS must be written for each individual ranchers.
FLPMA: federal government’s ownership of Public Land is permanent, gives BLM the authority to reduce stocking rate (allowing them to actually exclude)
essential more control and watch over ranchers land.
Identify environmentalists’ two main complaints about rangeland management, and how they fight for their cause
poor rangeland health: Theyare not check up are not keeping up and lands are grazed over
low fees: subsidize livestock grazing at the expense of taxpayers and the environment.
Characterize the argument that more moderate ranchers make for why
-regulation box them in: current regulation limit options. The environment is healthier with good grazing than with no grazing.
We can do good grazing and make money, but what we need is to reform the regulatory regimes to allow us to graze better
-cannot afford higher fees. Ranchers are at the bottom of the production chain. They are facing downward price pressure (they aren’t getting paid enough money to raise their cows).
If grazing fees do increase, will go out of business
Characterize the Sagebrush rebellion, and its more recent manifestations
a revolt against federal land ownership that arose in the 1970’s after passing of laws such as Federal Land Policy and Management Act
ranchers were pissed about the environmental era wanted everyone off their backs, social upheaval, started the pendulum years with politics
Clive Bundy’s Rebellion
didn’t pay his fees for years and then the BLM revoked his permit to get the cattle off the land and then it started a huge standoff, which made the BLM backoff due to the concern for the employees
Malheur Standoff:
two ranchers imprisoned for arson on federal land which was a wildlife refuge. Argued that local or state governments would better manage the land and its resources. Sent to prison which was seen as harsh. This fueled resentment of federal ownership
