The Cowboy – an endangered species

You just don't get it. Brokeback Mountain did nothing to "emasculate" the cowboy. The whole point, which was obviously missed on you, is that many gay men are in fact quite rugged and masculine by any definition. Masculinity and gayness are not mutually exclusive.

TY Daryl...As long as there is a desire to compete in rodeos and horse racing the cowboy (Wrangler or Vaquero) will continue to be born. It's the Outhouse that seems to be disappearing..;)

"Brokeback Mountain" was a disgrace and did not and would not show any image of the American cowboy! Most real cowboys wouldn't even go to see that waste of film footage. There are none of the cowboys I rodeo with that have even considered in veiwing a "gay cowboy" film.

The cowboy is an all american, get out and get the job done type of guy or gal! Its about the land, God and Country! If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the cowboy!

Thomas,

You said: "The cowboy is an all american, get out and get the job done type of guy or gal! Its about the land, God and Country! If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the cowboy!".

I agree. That is exactly my point. The guys is Brokeback Mountain were exactly that.

Did you see the movie or read the short story? If you didn't, I don't see where you are qualified to pass judgement on it.

Col. Bain:

I come from the sticks, and we always felt like there was a pretty wide chasm between ranch cowboys and rodeo cowboys. You can definitely be one and not the other; there are also plenty of rodeo cowboys who are "real" cowboys, but I'm pretty sure they're like a subspecies or something. ;-)

It's about land, god and country? And only a straight MAN is capable of understanding or feeling this? Get a life, Thomas, as a woman AND a genuine cowgirl I totally resent your ignorance and bigotry!

Casey..me too a woreout something.. I come from riding at 4 am and unsaddling at 8 pm many days on the Canadian River..The cowboy was quite unique, most of the time slender built, but they could risk getting bucked off a horse, kicked all day during branding, smimming a horse accross a river, and hope someone could help them with their boots where they could have a steak.
Rodeo still are quite the show, ever since it started in prescott, Arizona in the late 1890's. Yeppers Casey there is a difference..
Like an old timer cowboy told me it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve..
Gittup...

Stop using the bible as an excuse to be a narrow minded bigot!

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have been cowboy'in for nearly 50 years. Ranching and rodeo are one in the same. The rodeo was invented on the ranch. I believe that yes, a cowboy or cowgirl has strong ties to the land, because he/she cherishes it and takes care of it, God, because this country morals and beliefs are based on such, and country because when called upon a "true" cowboy/cowgirl will die defending our great country.

I am not using the "Bible" as an excuse for what Rose calls a narrow minded bigot. I'll admit it, I am anti-Gay! I don't believe in the Gay life style. If that is your definition of a bigot, then in your mind I am one. I don’t believe in treating you any different if you proclaim yourself as being gay. But then again, I don’t expect to be treated differently just because I am straight.

Being a cowboy isn't all about being able to ride a horse or a bull or able to drive cows, (it does help if you are on a ranch) although this is an important part of the cowboy and this country's history and I have been ranching for a very long time, as my father, grandfather and great grandfather have done all their lives. It is more important about how you feel in your heart, how you treat your neighbor, working hard each and every day. My days are not measured by hours, but by the seasons. There hasn't been any cowboy or cowgirl whether from the country or the city that I have ever turned away from my camp fire when in need.

I know what makes a cowboy/cowgirl, do you?

Thomas, and you are still a narrow-minded person if you really think there are no gay cowboys out there who think, feel, and grew up just like that.

I know some gay cowboys. Born and raised to that life. They embody every virtue you listed as a cowboy virtue. Yeah some of them live together, too. Quietly, because of attitudes like the one above. Happen to like those guys and feel bad that they have to live quietly.

Oh--you mentioned Brokeback Mountain. I can't see how either were testosteronely challenged, nor did Hollywood make that movie, it was an independent job. Hollywood wouldn't touch that script for years.

The real point to this article is what the author perceives to be an attempt by a certain group of individuals to "shut down" the business of public lands grazing. Whether or not someone is gay shouldn't really matter anymore so why doesn't everyone stop beating a dead horse already and discuss something which is highly relevant to anyone who has a stake in the care of the public lands (which is everyone who pays taxes). Betcha didn�t know the ranchers don�t own it, didya?

Personally, I don't know how much research Mr. Hunter has done on the matter, but if he had, he would know that Western Watersheds and several groups like it are passionate about the proper use of public lands; not shutting them down altogether. This, to me, makes a lot of sense. It kind of reminds me of a farmer who will plant in one field for a year or more and then let it sit for a year or so to let it "rest." The problem Western Watersheds seems to be trying to address is that the public lands are not given a chance to rest - ever. These groups� methods may rub some the wrong way, but that doesn�t mean they are rabid.

Any intelligent rancher knows you have to let the land rest or recuperate if you hope to continue to get anything out of it. But many are reluctant to walk the talk.

I believe the stewards of the public lands system (that being the US Department of the Interior, or on a local level, the Bureau of Land Management) aren't doing their job. The lands are not being rested � they are being grazed to death. Anyone who hasn�t been out in the middle of grazing land in Wyoming, Idaho, Utah or Nevada should take a day�s hike to see the devastation a herd of cattle can do over the course of one summer. It�s nasty business. What are the governing agencies doing about it? Not a whole lot from what I can see.

Of course, being the human beings they are, the ranchers are taking as much of the rope as they can, as far as they can, until they get caught, and then they start screaming about it. Oh, and forget about the romantic notion that the �cowboy� still spends his time rounding up the cows on his horse --- they use ATV�s now � great for ripping up the ecosystem as well.

I concede that there are ranchers who do take great care of the public land they are allotted. We just need more like them.

What would happen if the cattle were allowed to roam anywhere on the land that belongs to everyone (ranchers, city folk, urban folk, mountain hideouts, bikers, surfers, etc.) all the time? In a very short order there would be nothing but dead ground, no water, no flora, no fauna (or as most people know them - animals). And guess what? Those same eating machines would still need something to eat! And guess what again? Those same ranchers would scream about having to use their "hard earned" money on buying feed for their livestock. And then, we'd pay higher meat prices and grumble about that. What a vicious circle.

Forget about the two imaginary gay cowboys and their longsuffering wives ... there�s more going on right under our noses. Hollywood will continue to make movies � some we�ll like, others we won�t. Continued mismanagement of public lands will actually do major harm in the end unless we sit up, take notice,and DO something about it. WE pay for the care of public lands, the same as we do the national parks and the waters around the U.S. This is the kind of topic everyone should be concerned with - intelligently.

And, no, I�m not a raging environmentalist � I don�t even belong to a group. I just do my homework. Great job, Hunter for hiding that zinger � everyone completely missed it.

There may have been real, genuine cowboys somewhere on the range at one point, maybe around 1880 (?). But the modern cowboy is a myth. And nothing but. Rodeo cowboys are not "cowboys." They are entertainers. Ed Abbey was right.

Well, well, well, there you go Daryl. As your articles have progressed, you have started to get into the habit of slinging some real gratuitous horse manure; the habit seems to be getting worse with each article; and now it looks like you have started reaping what you have been sowing. Are we now stooping to that old cowboy mythology stuff and arguing about rodeo entertainers and gay cowboys? Did you think that this would be your way of making an intellectual contribution to the preservation of our ranching tradition? Come to think of it, if you were the real deal and any real part of that ranching tradition, you sure would have known that a 3000-acre cattle operation won't pencil anywhere outside the warm wet South, bear predation or no bear predation. A 3000-acre operation in the high altitude, always too dry, frozen over most of the year country in WY or MT won't ever sustain itself for long, again bear predation or no bear predation. I think there's a lot of horse manure being talked up here; I think you're a faker. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I ever met an authentic cattleman with a name like DARYL. Was that name your mother's idea?

Mike, for a hundred plus years we have had 500-acre ranches in the western mountains that pencil out but they need public grazing to do it. Without public grazing these small ranches will become smaller ranchettes to meet the insatiable appetite of those fleeing the cities.

As for your accusation: “I think you're a faker. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I ever met an authentic cattleman with a name like DARYL. Was that name your mother's idea”? Mike, I thought that when I said in the article that:” if owning a few horses, a hat and living on a ranch made me a cowboy I guess I am. The truth was different, I rented a house on a ranch and my possession of a few horses and a hat didn’t make me a cowboy. Living on that ranch taught me that”. Mike If that didn’t make it clear that I wasn’t a real cowboy or rancher, I apologize. I will let your comments about my name stand on their own merits.

Now that I am redundantly clear that I am not a cowboy, my empathy lies does with them. I admire their work ethic, honor and culture, I like the looks of their ranches in our valleys, and I would like them to remain there.

The ranching tradition is as old as the west. The only reason that many ranchers graze cows on land they can sell for $10,000 an acre is they like being cowboys as did their forefathers, a tradition that they would like to pass along to another generation. My empathy also lies with tradition.

When eastern culture puts the cowboy culture out of business it will be a great loss to us all. When our beautiful valleys are nothing but mini ranches and cottage businesses the loss will be immeasurable.

Interesting related New West article

Saving the Ranch: Cows Just Don’t Pencil on $10,000 an Acre Land

I was born in the East and i'm proud of that. And have no problem saying that the East doesn't have a clue when it comes to land use in the west, not even a glimse of reality. They think 500 acres is an awesome and huge piece of land. It's bare bones semi-survival in the west

Who's a cowboy, who's not; does The Cowboy still exist or not; if so, is He worth saving . . . & what if he loves other cowboys? Some of these questions are worthwhile, others are not.

"Javelin" tries to either extinguish our belief in The Cowboy or seriously degrade his value by arguing that cows are now rounded up off 4-wheelers instead of horseback. Clearly, "Javelin," you have never tried to gather cattle and take them someplace. Horses are still the best method, maybe augmented by some good stockdogs.

Four-wheelers have their place (they don't have to be caught and saddled, and can travel over gentle terrain about 3 times the speed of a trotting horse), but using them to move cattle is not one of them. Get out and experience it for yourself, instead of taking "Welfare Ranching" as a definitive account of modern cattle ranching.

The value of The Cowboy is, to me, his broad competence in a variety of difficult tasks, as Mr. Hunter points out. As our sorry U.S. culture leads us ever closer to the vision presented in the film "The Matrix," the notion that there are people out there firmly grounded in reality and weathering what may come is an inspiration and a comfort. In an age of self-appointed "leaders," hucksters and charlatans, the world of The Cowboy stands apart as a rare meritocracy.

Visit a metropolitan area and look at the way people live: narrow ranges of competency, passively entertained, scarcely capable of buttering their own toast. We're getting fatter, dumber, and unhappier with every generation. Consumerism is either the national religion or the national addiction or both, depending on who you talk to.

There will come a day -- and it's probably already here -- when our sad America will sorely need some wisdom and gudiance from poeple who understand how to live a worthwhile life. There's way more to it than fitting in as a cog in the machine of our inhumane, globe-destroying economy. Sitting Bull knew this, the Dalai Lama knows this, and I know that many of the people I'd call cowboys know it.

Cowboy as shaman/spirit guide? Maybe sounds a little wacky. I don't want to veer off into a detailed ethnography of what I mean by "Cowboy," but understand that I have a fairly nuanced view of the term.

Like I said before, the world of the cowboy is a true meritocracy -- you either get the job done and done with grace, or you don't, regardless of your hat, your belief in some deity, or your politics or sexual orientation. That is the core of my belief in the value of the cowboy.

People should recognize that value and strive to integrate it with the other things they value -- say, biodiversity, wolves, water quality, social tolerance -- rather than dismiss it as "nostalgia" or "myth" and proclaiming that the cowboy is incompatible with the things they value. Can we do that? Can we try?

And you "cowboys" out there who look at NewWest, it's going to take a little try on your part too. Maybe get past some of the knuckleheaded violent knee-jerk stuff that passes for "The Cowboy Way" (I think there was a really godawful movie of that name that makes the point for me).

And this pains me to say it, since I do like the rodeo, but maybe conventional rodeo (as opposed to ranch rodeo: see http://thecalifornios.com/ or Working Ranch Cowboy Association) does not put the best face on cowboy life. Sorry, but no one interested in low-stress livestock handling (which is safer for everyone and more profitable, by the way) thinks that conventional rodeo is a showcase of good ranching skills. You adapt and change if you have to, and a good hard look in the mirror is usually the first step.

If you're going to blame anyone for "invading" the cowboy lifestyle - blame Simplot and those like him. Funny how cowboys never shed a tear about the corporate operations that have been threatening independent "cowboys" for years.

If you want your culture, fine, do it. Just do it on your own land. No one is denying anyone the ability to do with their own land as they will. You're argument seems to be that cowboys need the public lands. So do two things:

A. Do what a "cowboy" would do; Call it what it is welfare

Daryl, you freely admit in your previous post: [url="http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/the_public_grazing_conundrum/" ]According the GAO grazing fees generated about $21 million in fiscal year 2004 less than one-sixth of the expenditures to manage grazing.
[/url] That's welfare (our government/taxes paying to keep a dependent afloat). That in addition to above, where you mention 500 acre ranches "pencil out" --- "but they need public grazing to do it" that's not "penciling out", that again is welfare.

B. Square that welfare dependency with the "iconical cowboy" image you spend so much time creating.

It's hard for me to imagine that rough, rugged cowboy waiting in line like everyone else when they're looking for government assistance

It doesn't float. And the poor independent ranchers who don't have the permit have to pay for the feed and try to compete with the mega-permittee who's floating on vastly underpriced public AUMs. It'd be better for all of them to get the hell off of the public land and compete on an even playing field then for the biggest (corporate) to pull political strings and acquire the permit skewing the private/independent rancher's production costs out of a competitive price.

The environmentalist = scapegoat

Javelin, you do have a valid point with regards to our public lands and I think we as ranchers could do better. There are good ranchers and bad ranchers. Like the “family farm” in this country the "family ranch" is starting to become a thing of the past with "big cooperate ranching" taking over. I believe the traditional rancher has always, with a few exceptions, been good stewards of the land. They have to be! Without good grass, you don't have good cattle.

Daryl and Mike good comments and thanks for bring us back on point.

Public grazing has always been an issue since the advent of fencing the west, and it will continue, I would imagine for sometime to come.

But consider this, especially for those folks that are against public grazing: Where is the beef going to come from to feed a hungry America? Or do you all want us to become vegetarians?

Can we, as ranchers, do a better job of being stewards of the land, you bet we can and we are. Ranchers spend millions in conserving it, saving it and trying to take care of the land that our forefathers gave us the responsibility for.

Oh and Javelin, try herding a bunch of upset cattle with an ATV, it doesn’t work. Slow and easy with a horse has ALWAYS been the best way.

Well, Florida runs an awful lot of cattle. So does Georgia.

Good point Alan!

Believe or not, next to Texas, Missouri is the second leading cattle producer in the country. Most of them small family ranches.

I recently had an interesting discussion with a coworker about logging in British Columbia, and it does have a lot of striking similarities with this one.

Here in the U.S. we have a lot of watchdogs who have done a lot of work to make sure that when harvest is done on public lands, it is done as well as possible. (I include environmental groups, planners, and government employees who implement the sales, as well as loggers who know what side their bread is buttered on.) (And you can make jokes and jabs all you want about enviros and government employees, but I know there are a lot of dedicated folks out there.) Then you take a look at logged public lands in Canada and it is a clear-cut for miles--riparian areas are fair game, and everything looks horrible.

You can draw the same picture when you ask the question, "Where is the beef going to come from to feed a hungry America?" A lot of it already comes from South America--do they have watchdogs making sure that lands aren't overgrazed? I'm guessing it is a similar deal. We may be in a situation where we really ought to be accepting that public grazing in America is better for the planet than outsourcing it to other countries where we can't keep an eye on things to make sure "right" is being done. The issue is likely more global than we think.

I msut say it is giving me a chuckle to see all of the defense of the gay lifestyle. Has anyone read the news the last couple of weeks. It would appear the whole Republican party should resign en masse since it appears nearly everyone knew Rep Foley (R. FL) was gay, and that is not to be tolerated even though there is no indication that he ever touched a page, and he has resigned. Oh by the way those guys were sheep herders from all I've heard, NOT cowboys.
I don't live on a ranch now, but I grew up on one, and the ranch lifestyle is a part of me as much as the air I breathe. Bad ranchers tend to be city guys who make lot's of money and buy a ranch thinking it is sit back and take it easy and rake in the dough. A ranch that has been in the family for years is most often better taken care of, it has to be or the ranch cannot survive.
Ranchers are the ultimate in responsibility, I watched my uncle out climbing up the hay stack to roll down bales and feed his cows up until we talked him into selling out at 92+. No matter how he felt, the cows had to be cared for as far as he was concerned. He did do some things on a 4-wheeler the last couple of years. There is no such thing as a sick day to a rancher. The first time ever that he did not feed his saddle horse in the morning was the morning he went to the Lord....at home.
That kind of devotion is not anything the hiker upset at getting poo poo on his $300 hiking boots can understand. It is only a place to play to him. When the recreationalist will be looking for something new and more exciting in a few years, if the rancher is still there, so will the wildlife that feeds on his place be there. If it is all taken away to make a cleaner place to play we will all lose. The wildlife needs the rancher and the meadows, and water sources as much as the rancher needs to be able to continue leasing grazing land.

By-be - Our public lands are multiuse lands for ranching, logging, mining. outfitting, recreation etc. The truth is, I think the use fees ought to slightly exceed the governments cost of maintenance That is of course with the exception of my trail riding and your backpacking, we will take the welfare on that wont we By-be?

The government has never run anything in a cost effective manner and we can hardly blame the rancher, logger, miner, outfitter, and recreationist because the government set their fees to low.

By-be, I have to assume that you are OK with a bankrupt ranching industry subdividing our valleys so the city folk will have a place to escape to.

When the numbers of newcomers that settle in the valleys grows exponentially then go to recreating in the mountains, rivers and lakes you’ll be longing for the days of solitude when it was just you and a few detested bovines up there in the forest.

On the other hand, mountain valley land is getting pretty expensive, with a greater supply of subdivided land the price would come down and I might be able to upgrade to a better piece of land after all. Who knows it could get cheap enough that my redneck kin from the four corners of the country could benefit from an affordable farmette land bonanza.

By-be, public land ranching is an economical way of preserving green space.

Steve, I have to apologize if what I was trying to point out was seen as being 'righteous.' My intent was not to invalidate the Cowboy or his lifestyle (and I’m not talking about gay cowboys here); but to balance the true picture of the ‘woe is us' cowboy stuff we keep hearing about. It was not my intention to degrade anyone in the ranching or cattle industry (however, I do have serious issues with bikers who think the highway belongs to them). Well, I lied just now, I have serious issues with those who are running feedlots with foulness I have never seen before, or for that matter, smelled before – but that is another topic.
My main point was that our public lands need better stewards. The land is being trampled to death, grazed to death and it is all so avoidable. We should not have to monitor what is going on – that is the job of the government agencies- and they are failing.

Thomas, I have seen a picture of a rancher and his friend rounding up a rather large bunch of cattle on a hillside on his ATV. I, like most people, would like to continue hanging on to a picture of the man and his horse doing the job, but the truth has to come out at some point. I am sure, that as you say, there are ranchers who do it without using fossil fuels, but one day you are going to look up and be the only man on his horse for 100 square miles. The true cowboy is rapdily becoming an ideal, just like the truly great politician, the absolutely admirable sports star, and etc.

By the way, Steve, the dear Dalai Lama does not have to work. He does not have to raise kids or deal with a spouse, does not have to sit in traffic or go by a feedlot or even live downstream from one. He is not an appropriate guide to people who actually have to “live” every day.

I really enjoyed your “mission statement” regarding the meritocracy of the cowboy – would that our president, congress, state and local leaders led their lives that way. This is a nation that follows the actions of its leaders.

Daryl, I just had to laugh at the last line of your last post: [ By-be, public land ranching is an economical way of preserving green space.] It would be if everyone did what they were supposed to be doing: if ranchers with the most sensitive allotments to the ranchers with semi-sensitive allotments used the land responsibly. It would if the Bureau of Land Management was an truly active steward of the land. And if we, as bikers, atv folks, campers, hikers, etc. would respect the space need for grazing. Someone has to take the high road – who will it be? Ranchers using public lands is all about economy – the less they follow the guidelines given to them, the more economical it is for them to graze their animals for a longer period of time, where ever the heck they feel like it.

What a great discussion!

daryl, i can respect your take on the fees. i'm not as optimistic about the open-spaces though. i don't see the ranchers holding out. You've got the developers on one side and Simplot on the other. That land is being developed whether the enviros are there or not and with conservation easements & some decent management there's a good chance the land can stay healthy.

It seems hard for me to ask a man to turn away the buy-outs WWP et al (and many ranchers actually) are supporting. Seems like a pretty fair split for all involved there, some may take exception, but I'd even use the word generous.

I've got a friend out of Lewistown MT who sold his ranch this past year. His operation was too small anymore and some bigger operation had the public allotment adjacent to his land. He told me something along the lines of what Javeline said about the economics. How is the good steward rancher supposed to survive (the smaller the ranch the more incentive there is to take good stock of the animals you've got) when the big guy can dump off so many cows onto public land, leave, come back late and pick them up - a few short perhaps - but still more economically then if he stuck around (and actually knew what was going on with the "riperian" areas). Javelin's got a second good point too:

good discussion.

If a man decides that he wants to buy-out his allotment, God bless! It's a hard thing trying decide what you're going to leave your kids. The first thing would be to get that option out there though, the least it'd do is give them a bit more say.

Daryl L. Hunter wrote:

"Jon Marvel's Western Watersheds Project, and the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign are trying to end public grazing on our rangelands. When public grazing ends and ranchers no longer have a place to graze their cows during the hay farming season the cowboy, as we know him will fade away also. Restricted to the confines of a bankrupt fenced in ranch and barred from the wide-open spaces, it will sadly spell the demise for this living icon of Americana."

However, I remember Jon Marvel saying the problem is there are not enough cowboys out there fixing fences and keeping livestock ouf to the streams.

What is a cowboy anyway? By one definition they were gone by the 1890s. How many Westerns were about the end of the cowboy? There were usually fixed at about 1900.

By others' definition it's anyone who wears a cowboy hat and cowboy boots -- ironically folks often new to the West.

Is a cowboy a ranch hand? If so, it is such an irony that we have an occupation honored so much, with the real cowboys treated so badly.

Its nice to know that Real cowboys still speak their piece of mind.
A conversation here with the Liveliness of a good westen Dance and a good fist fight afterward... yepp the "Old West" still lives especially the comment when a 94 year old man makes sure his horse is fed..Really touched the Colonel heart there.

Agreed that this is a good discussion. Javelin, you didn't sound righteous, just poorly-informed on horses-vs-4wheelers.

There is a photo on the cover of "Welfare Ranching" of a guy on a 4wheeler, but note that there's a guy in the background horseback. Not sure who they are exactly, but the setting is a big move in southwest Montana's upper Ruby River. If you spend some time over there, you will still see a lot of cattle being worked horseback.

One outfit over there still trails them three days both ways, using horses and dogs. It's a big social event, with camping and horseshoe throwing. Not a big Ralph Lauren commerical deal -- don't know whether there are any paying guests. A lot of guys and gals with "day jobs" who own horses and think moving cattle (not abusing them) is a good time. Why? Fun, fullfilling, camaraderie, horses, dogs, fresh air . . . all the things that cause some people to choose cowboying as their actual "day job," in spite of the hardships and low pay.

The people who own those cattle: would it make more sense ($) to truck them back and forth? Probably -- so long as fuel remains relatively cheap because we never pay the full cost of it (externalities). But, it's not just about money, and the company of good friends, horses, dogs and cows is part of the payday.

Also agree with Javelin that feelots are offensive and so much more. See Michael Pollan's latest piece in the New York Times (15 Oct 06) on the link between feedlots and virulent E. coli strains contaminating spinach. Apparently E. coli 0157:H7 thrives in the guts of grain-fed cattle, and then it ends up in irrigation water and from there, on fresh spinach. Thanks a lot.

Read more Michael Pollan and you may come away with the impression that our system of food production is a mess. I already thought that, but Mr. Pollan does a good job of tying it all together.

Beef production is really bound up tightly with corn production. Once the US figured out how to grow enormous surpluses of corn, we decided to dispose of it by turning it into beef (sour mash would have been a better notion). Input-intensive corn production becomes input-intensive beef production. Calves that spend that grow up on the bunchgrass of southwest Montana often end up on cattle trucks bound for the feedlots of Nebraska, CO, KS, IA, MN . . . very well traveled by the time the beef gets to Safeway back in Dillon.

The idealist in me says, wouldn't it be nice to eat "bioregionally," and keep those calves on grass here and feed the steaks to people here? But that's not easy fix.

Grassfed beef is slowly catching on, but it won't be a solution for everyone who wants to run cattle. Montana produces far more cattle than Montanans could ever consume (70 pounds per person per year = less than 70 million pounds in-state consumption, versus potential production of about 500 million pounds of cut beef).

Eating beef in a place where it's hard to grow table vegetables yet easy to grow grass is arguably an ecologically sustainable choice, as long as it really is local beef that didn't go on a diesel-powered tour of the Corn Belt. Eating that way, however, is going to reduce the number of cattle being run out here. That could put more ranches out of business, further reducing the demand for "real cowboys" (people with that actual job description, as opposed to people with a certain wardrobe or identity).

On the plus side, though, maybe lowering supply would raise the price? And, on the other side of the equation, maybe the wealth-saturated mountain valleys -- in spite of the crazy land prices that turn ranchland into ranchettes -- may just have enough folks who could be convinced to pay more for local steaks to help bioregional grassfed get a toe hold.

Maybe these wealthy people will see that ranching does maintain open space and habitat, and that locally-raised grassfed beef is sustainable AND healthier. And maybe they'll even value a local culture that trails cattle for three days and makes it into a community event.

Some of this is occuring already, but the scale is almost too tiny to register.

I can hear it already, so I'll address it head-on: no, I'm not saying that cattle ranching ought to just be about raising steaks for the jet-setters of Sun Valley, with no thought to the less-well-off. The "money cuts" from a beef are usually out of reach for the poor even at Safeway -- I'm sure they could buy grassfed burger just the same of they buy the "chub" of Ecoli burger. And, a lot of Americans could stand to pay a little more for,and eat a little less meat.

And, Javelin, I appreciate your thoughts about the Dalai Lama, but the same could be applied to any spiritual leader -- and we could argue about whether any of them "work." I think they do.

My point (not well articulated) was that measuring one's satisfaction by level of material consumption and accumulation leads to a hollowness that manifests itself in all sorts of maladies. Having some shamans who epitomize a different approach is going to be increasingly important all the time. Especially in a nation where our Commader-in-Chief tells us, as we face a grave crisis like 11 September, to go shopping.

"The means by which we live have outdistanced the ends for which we live. Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."

-- The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

"My point (not well articulated) was that measuring one's satisfaction by level of material consumption and accumulation leads to a hollowness that manifests itself in all sorts of maladies. Having some shamans who epitomize a different approach is going to be increasingly important all the time."

That is exactly why ranchers and cowboys continue to do their job in spite of weather, low prices, trucked in wolves, etc.

i think ralph's comment hits the nail on the head about Jon Marvel. i'm for more cowboys that keep the cows out of the water and keep the fences mended. my "beef" is with the suits (they're the real swindlers). that & i'll take daryl up on his offer about allotment prices- which i hope means he'll write a post as eloquently about bringing leases up to market value :)

By be, for once we agree, the law suits are indeed the swindlers. They take money given to save whatever they are advertising and use it to take private proerty awway from those who own it, or at least take away the use of it, forcing the owner to continue to pay for it.
As for leases being undervalued, again you have to factor in the improvements made to the land, and the trade off of having private ranch land available for wildlife in the winter. The reservoirs built by ranchers can make the difference of life and death for wildlife in a dry summer.
Once we start putting amarket value on "public land", it must affect everyone, including hikers and back country folks. Let's see at $10 for a 2 hour movie ticket and 25bucks a night to camp at KOA that would be how much to hike and cmap in the back country???????????

suits as in corporate folk - the people that need to be bought out to give the real cowboys half a chance. sorry for the misunderstanding.

In terms of animals, corporate ranches dominate the public lands. Simplot has more than 50% of the grazing leases in Idaho (50% in terms of the number of animals).

In the independent family rancher is only about a quarter -- more legend than reality -- kind of like the family farmer.

Ralph, does Simplot employ cowboys to tend the cattle or does JR do it himself. When Simplot takes them off the leases does he bring them to a wide open space that we would like to remain the same?

The reason corporations have been able to gain so much is because the little rancher operates on a pretty thin margin and the constant assault from environmentalists wanting to control them has been the tipping point, and more than many can deal with. Those that cannot hang on have few choices, they can sell to developers, or they can sell to corporate ranchers, which will at least keep it as a working ranch. At least Simplot and other corporate ranchers will keep it as a ranch, but they are not nearly as likely to allow hunting, fishing, and other access to their private land as the rancher who was a neighbor.
It is kind of a case of be careful what you ask for. As environmental groups have tried to control the individual rancher and limit his grazing permits, they have in fact caused some of this shift to corporations that are big enough to push back. When the dust settles it is likely to not be good for any of us. But those drunk on power are going to push for all of the control they can get, we see it in politics and we see it in the environmental movement. They start out to do good, and end up concerned with thier own desires.

Daryl,

Since we are really talking about a corporation here with operations in many places, these questions can't be answered in a simple way.

Marion,

You are absolutely correct! Ranchers are not environmentalist, they are conservationist. Huge difference! Most ranchers don't buy into the waco ideas of the so-called environmentalist, but we are forced to have to expend the few extra precious dollars we have to fight them in our liberal court system.

Well said Marion.

There is ONE HUGE FALSE ASSUMPTION HERE.

Cowboys and ranchers do not need PUBLIC LANDS to do their business!

They have no right to be there. Cattle are disrupting the lands and the native animals there to a deadly degree!

Get your cattle off our public lands -- protect and restore native carnivores to their rightful place in the landscape!

Let's get terminology straightened out.

Cowboys are just hired hands to work for the livestock owner.

The livestock OWNER who chooses to use LETHAL MEANS to destroy our native predatory animals is the enemy of those who wish to restore and protect them from private interests.

Hey, I'd love to help you keep up your lifestyle, boys, but the problem is -- running livestock LOOSE ON OPEN LANDS is resulting in 1.6 MILLION ANIMALS being destroyed ANNUALLY by "Wildlife Services" to the tune of $30 million in taxpayer money!

I'm very sorry but that is too STEEP a price to pay for you to retain your lifestyle.

You can always ride your horse -- no one is stopping you from doing that.

But at the very least, keep off our PUBLIC LANDS. They are for everyone's use-- not private ranching interests!

Why should corporations and private livestock owners be allowed to graze their cattle on OUR public lands?

Can I open a boutique on public lands?

Argh... I missed this comment before!

YOU SAID: Where is the beef going to come from to feed a hungry America? Or do you all want us to become vegetarians?**********

A TINY PERCENTAGE OF BEEF COMES FROM THE WEST. YOU COULD CLOSE DOWN ALL OF IT AND IT WOULDN'T HARDLY MAKE A DENT. LOOK UP THE STATISTICS.

RAISING BISON WOULD BE A BETTER CHOICE ANYWAY -- they can fend off predators successfully and it's healthier!

Cattle do not belong in the arid West and especially do not belong on OUR PUBLIC LANDS! That's outrageous!