Buzz:
Are you saying ranchers in Wyoming do have the right to shoot a wolf that is caught in the act of trying to kill livestock? I was not aware that they could.
Forgive me, but I must snicker a little when you argue about public comments on an EIS being the dominant, valid reason to reintroduce wolves. I don't actually think it was as bad an idea as it's made out to be AS LONG AS ranchers can defend their livestock. The vast majority of comments you get are at best from ignorant people that don't even read what is written in the document they are commenting on. At worst the comments are from idiots. You can't consider public comments to be representative of general consensus - just the radicals on both sides.
I recently put together an EA to describe an effort to remove feral horses (not wild per a court ruling)from a military installation. The horses were getting horribly injured from military training, had documented equine infectious anemia, and were severely hampering erosion control efforts. We got about 1500 comments from folks who were worked into a frenzy by mass e-mail message an opponent sent out. Needless to say the horses are still there right now.
Besides, one of the basic principles of our government system is that the majority can't stomp the rights of the few.
My point on subsidies for agriculture is that row cropping receives far more subsidies than any cattle rancher - including those grazing public land. There are plenty of data to back that fact up.
Public land grazing just needs to be managed a lot better. The science is there if it would just be implemented. In droughts you graze fewer cattle - that's how it is done on private land. Ranching in the interior west has a very long heritage and its not going to go away completely. Period. 2% may not sound like much, but its a huge deal to those families that depend on that 2%. I'd rather them stay in business with grazing leases too cheap on public land than cattle ranching to eventually go the way that corporate farming has. Cattle prices (as well as all agricultural products) are affected by many more variables than simple supply and demand. Its complicated enough that I don't pretend to understand it.
It is very easy to argue that our agricultural system in the U.S. is full of ridiculous decisions. What state produces the most cotton? Arizona - which is a true desert the last time I checked. Trying to graze a few cows on arid land isn't nearly as far from "natural" as massive irrigation projects.
We aren't perfect, but we literally have figured out how to feed most of the world. We have time to worry about things like saving the environment, reintroducing wolves, same-sex marriages, and a whole littany of social issues because we aren't worrying about where the next meal is coming from. You could let agricultural prices be determined on pure supply and demand allright, but a lot of us would be back to living off beans and cornbread instead of steak.
We forget the history of why our system developed as it has. It hasn't been so long ago that this country received massive numbers of immigrants fleeing starvation. It's easy for a lot of people to sit in a city or office and criticize agriculture with a full belly. A lot of our grandparents remember full well how life used to be and how basic essentials are taken for granted now. From my observations, things like urban sprawl and heavy development and invasive species (which I grant is sometimes aided by overgrazing) is a much bigger threat to public lands than agriculture or oil and gas development.
