Skip to main content

View Diary: Fishgrease - Give Up Something You Love Or Go To Hell - Updated (541 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  One of the intriguing proposals that intersects (11+ / 0-)

    here is the buffalo commons. There is a large patch (think Montana, North and South Dakota) that is really not adapted to supporting year round, urban human living. Some have suggested withdrawing all federal supports from the area and giving it back to the buffalo, who are adapted just fine. As the herds grew up they could be harvested judiciously and such meat would be reasonable to eat, certainly far more so than the current mass produced beef is.



    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 05:57:31 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's a fantasy, grown of a dream to put rural (6+ / 0-)

      people off their land. There are very few towns or urban living in the Dakotas, but a heck of a lot of wheat. We've been farming and ranching for 10,000 years because it's more productive, and we get better at it all the time.

      There is a movement to put people off their land. It originates in urban centers on the coasts, and is aimed at us in fly over country.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:11:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What happens when the aquifer runs dry? (18+ / 0-)

        You know that Plains agriculture is more water-intensive than the local rainfall reliably supports, don't you?  That's why the Ogallala aquifer is dropping so quickly.  Absent the runoff from another ice age continental glacier, it ain't coming back.  

        Hard choices are going to be forced on us by climate change.  Digging your heels in and grousing about every possible solution is not tenable.

        Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

        by Dallasdoc on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:27:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You should check the population numbers (22+ / 0-)

        for the small towns on the high plains. They are declining. I drive through Kansas from time to time and there are small towns out on the west end who will give you land for free if you'll just move to town. Please? Because those towns are slowly dying. The rural people are putting themselves off their land by choice.

        And when the Ogallala aquifer goes dry in 30 years or so it's going to be a new Dust Bowl, and nothing short of a massive Federal project to bring water from the Great Lakes or the Pacific Northwest will save western Oklahoma, western Kansas, western Nebraska, and eastern Colorado from depopulation.

        Those farms and ranches are already largely corporate. Speaking as a denizen of flyover country, not subsidizing the corporations trying to extract the last bit of money from that land before it becomes unusable even by bison makes sense.

        Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

        by blue aardvark on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:32:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  cause and effect: the rural plains peaked (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blue aardvark, DrFood

          inpeaked in population over a hundred years ago.  The Buffalo Commons was an idea to stabilize population, not end it.

          That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

          by Inland on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 08:12:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I've already heard all that stuff, please, if you (0+ / 0-)

          are talking to anyone other than true beliers don't use fiction. More acreage is under production than ever before. Ogallala Falllala, dry land wheat doesn't use aquifers.

          Average ranch is 60K profit per year, there are 600,000 ranches in the US. Stop reading fairy tales from nutty enviro groups.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 04:39:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I guess I should believe you rather than (0+ / 0-)

            my own eyes when I see those "free land" billboards.

            And you're more reliable than the US Census, too.

            I don't think you've been in eastern Colorado much if you're speaking so blithely of losing well water.

            There are fairy tales being spread, just not certain they are ones I've bought into.

            Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

            by blue aardvark on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 05:40:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  actually I would need (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama, The Marti, jrooth, hooper

        some proof of the plans to put rural people off 'their land'.

      •  Is that wheat irrigated? Because if it is, it is (7+ / 0-)

        as much of an environmental challenge as urban life.



        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:25:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Uh, you're saying Dave Foreman is part of an (12+ / 0-)

        urban conspiracy to rob rural people?

        Would you accuse Ed Abbey of the same?

        This is science-based Deep Ecology, not urban privilege.  We need to depopulate vast areas of land--not all of it, because we do need fertile fields!--to return to wilderness for scientifically valid reasons of habitat maintenance.  Ideally, this should include all areas of the nation, not just lower population rural states--and there I think you might have something, along the "wolves in Central Park" concept, where New Yorkers bristle at having to face big predators in the Adirondacks, & Carolinans rail against giving up Piedmont tracts & coastal access.

        But the fact is that for humans, dense/urban living makes much more sense than rural living for almost everyone.  It doesn't mean rural living should vanish, but it does mean land reallocation for habitat purposes will inherently affect more rural area, although many fewer people.  

        What do you suppose would be the profit motive behind this movement to put people off their land, as conceived in coastal urban centers?  Why can't it be about ecological values as derived by scientific learning?

        Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

        by Leftcandid on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:36:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ed Abbey is a drunk bloviating idiot (0+ / 0-)

          Deep Ecology is deep bullshit

          check out the world past the five boroughs and get back to me.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 04:31:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with you often, but I totally disagree on (0+ / 0-)

            this point.

            Me: lifetime resident of the Southwest, Phoenix & Denver.  Have spent a couple hours in Manhattan, vs months of combined time out in Nature, amost entirely west of the Mississippi.  Don't hunt or fish, but have read plenty by knowledgeable people.  Sorry you don't like Abbey; is Muir more your speed?  Leopold?

            Most species need spacious habitat to thrive; we're ruining much of it, & taking up far too much of the rest of it.  This is science talking, not urbanity.  And recognition of that science imposes moral obligations to ensure that we give other species what they need to keep going, even if we must sacrifice land, & even if that land sacrifice disproportinately affects some people (who should be well compensated, of course, for having to move).  To commit extinction is the greatest sin.  Yes, that's my opinion, but it is rooted in truth & I'm sticking with it.  I'm willing to shovel under all kinds of private property notions to prevent extinctions... and you should be, too.  Much of our tradition about private property is morally obsolete.  

            Tradition is worth only so much; when it prevents moral progress, it's time to dispense with it.

            That urbanite East Coasters with no personal experience of the Midwest or West find it convenient to make decisions about other people does not alter this truth.  It's always a mistake to define an opinion, idea, or action solely by who else holds it.

            Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

            by Leftcandid on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:27:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  It is also (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama, Dallasdoc, mamamedusa, blueoasis

        Derives from people who can do science and math and recognize that much of the current practice is not sustainable is there weren't large subsidies

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 08:31:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site