An essay on the rural Mississippi Delta

Here's the lede from today's New York Times Sunday Review piece, "Sweet Home Mississippi" by Richard Grant.  

TO move from Lower Manhattan to rural Mississippi is probably the most extreme culture shock available in this country.

The essay features many observations on race, like this portion of one paragraph:

Contradictions are like oxygen here, part of the air itself. The Delta is arguably the most racist, or racially obsessed, place in America, and yet you see more ease and conviviality between blacks and whites than in the rest of America. It’s not uncommon to find close, loving, quasi-familial relationships between black and white families who have known one another for generations. They weep together at one another’s funerals, and sometimes name their children after one another

Read more to decide if you agree about that "extreme culture shock" assertion, and to ponder lots of information about the complicated race relations.  

Environmentalists' victory lap over Keystone XL Pipeline fails to acknowledge rural angle, protests

President Obama announced yesterday the rejection of the 1,179 mile Keystone XL pipeline, the wildly controversial "bit" of infrastructure that would would have snaked from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada to the U.S. Gulf coast, giving Canadian oil access to refineries there.  Read the NPR coverage here and the New York Times coverage here.  The NYT lede is here:

President Obamaannounced on Friday that he had rejected the request from a Canadian company to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline, ending a seven-year review that had become a symbol of the debate over his climate policies.

One of my favorite quotes from Obama's speech follows:

It has become a symbol too often used as a campaign cudgel by both parties rather than a serious policy matter,” he said. “And all of this obscured the fact that this pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others.

The NYT story quotes Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, an environmental activist group which campaigned against the pipeline:

President Obama is the first world leader to reject a project because of its effect on the climate. That gives him new stature as an environmental leader, and it eloquently confirms the five years and millions of hours of work that people of every kind put into this fight.

What is striking to me is that neither of these stories makes any mention of the enormous grassroots effort against the pipeline, a grassroots effort by farmers and other landowners, primarily in Nebraska, where the pipeline would have threatened the Oglala Aquifer.  I have covered that activism extensively on Legal Ruralism, including here, here and here.  Further, the New York Times has covered that activism, including in a major story in the New York Times Magazine las year and also in the 2013 op-ed here.  

Rural-Urban reversal on LGBTQ rights?

The City of Houston voted this week to repeal an anti-discrimination ordinance aimed at protecting the LGBTQ community.  Manny Fernandez and Mitch Smith report in the New York Times here, with this lede:

A yearlong battle over gay and transgender rights that turned into a costly, ugly war of words between this city’s lesbian mayor and social conservatives ended Tuesday as voters easily repealed an anti-discrimination ordinance that had attracted attention from the White House, sports figures and Hollywood celebrities.

Houston is, of course, one of the largest cities in the nation, so this isn't what we would expect, perhaps, even in socially conservative Texas.  

Meanwhile, Miles Bryan reports on NPR that some "rural" places are acting more progressively on this issue.  Here's the lede to his story: 

Pocatello, Idaho, and Laramie, Wyo., might not be the first places you think of leading the charge to protect the LGBT community from discrimination. But in these rural, Republican-led states, local governments are taking the matter into their own hands.

Ok, so this isn't exactly the story of an entirely progressive "rural," but it does suggest a foothold of progressive politics in some small cities that would be popularly thought of as "rural."  Indeed, the headline for the story holds these places out as rural:  "'Patchwork of Protection' in Rural Areas for LGBT Community Has Limits."  And that runs counter to stereotypes, leaving Houston and Pocatello in a bit of a role reversal on rights for sexual minorities.  

U.S. and Indian tribes to share information on crime

Eric Lichtblau reports in today's New York Times, "U.S. to Share Criminal Records with Native American Police."  Here is an excerpt that highlights what is at stake with this move:

The Justice Department moved Thursday to fix what it described as “an information gap” that has allowed offenders living on Native American reservations to buy guns illegally and for years has blocked tribal police from access to important criminal records.

* * * 

In an announcement timed with the Tribal Nations Conference at the White House on Thursday, the Justice Department named 10 Native American tribes around the country to share criminal and civil records with the federal government through a trial program expected to cost about $1 million.  

* * *

With crime a longstanding problem on reservations, tribal police have complained for years about spotty access to important legal databases run by federal and state governments. They say the problem has hindered not only the ability to identify illegal gun purchases, but also to apprehend fugitives, investigate crimes and guard against domestic and sexual assaults.

Litchblau reports these events in relation to a 2014 incident involving the Tulalip Tribe in Washington State. A 14-year-old from that community used his father's handgun to shoot four students before turning the gun on himself at Marysville-Pilchuck High School. But the boy's father should not have been able to purchase the gun because he had violated a prior restraining order that arose from a domestic violence situation. That tribal court order, however, was not in the federal database. The father has since been convicted in federal court of firearms violations.  Read more here and here.

Indigenous Australians: the brutal cycle of subpar education, healthcare, and poverty for a rural population

Introduction

In many respects the story of Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders (hereinafter referred to as Indigenous Australians or people for readability) mirrors that of other native peoples.  As the European population spread over the continent, Indigenous peoples were marginalized, assimilated, or killed.  In Australia, from the 1870s to the 1970s (officially, 1969, but the practice continued in some locations for some time), indigenous children were forcibly removed from their communities.

The tragedy of the indigenous experience is one that is incredibly rich and complex, and I do not seek to do it justice in a single post.  However, the parallels of that experience to that of Native Americans is worth noting: many Indigenous Australians live in rural or remote areas, and experience the same issues as other remote populations: poverty, lack of access to education, healthcare, and social services, increased instances of substance abuse and domestic violence.  In Australia, the Indigenous population experiences rural issues at a higher rate than the white populations.  This post will focus on indigenous poverty, education, and healthcare; and the policies the Australian federal government may change under the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull.

For posts on the interplay between education and health in rural California, read this.  For a more comprehensive understanding of rural poverty and education in the US, read this.  For a post on rural health in the United States, read this. 

Indigenous Poverty 

Across Australia,  rural and remote poverty is slightly worse than it is in the "capital cities," 13.1% in rural areas vs. 12.6% in the cities.  For a more detailed breakdown of Australian demographics, see this. Poverty in the greater, rural Australian contexts several characteristics: 

• lower income
• declining employment opportunities
• distance and isolation
• reduced access to healthcare, education, and other social services.

Throughout most of Australia, the poverty rate is generally higher in rural areas, except in New South Wales and Western Australia (where the cost of housing in the capital cities; Sydney and Perth, is very high). 

Specific to Indigenous Australians, the average disposable income of an indigenous person is about 70% of that of a white Australian. The discrepancy between Indigenous and white Australians is exacerbated in rural Australia.  For example, in Cape York (the remote, northern peninsula in Queensland), the average Indigenous weekly income is $394, 45% of the white average income of $869.  In no region of Australia--remote, rural, or urbanized--do Indigenous Australians have a higher disposable income than white Australians. Furthermore, Indigenous Australians are 2.5% of the overall population, but accounted for nearly 25% of homeless people in the 2011 census. 

As of the 2011 census, the Indigenous unemployment rate was 17.1%.  Of the Indigenous Australians aged between 15 and 64, only 46.5% were employed, compared to 70.6% of white Australians.  
Clearly, despite the relatively small proportion of the Australian population that is Indigenous, this population is disproportionately poor, under-served, and resident in rural and remote areas.  In fact, only 1/3 of Indigenous Australians live in major cities.  The remaining 2/3 of the Indigenous populations live in inner regional (22%), outer regional (22%), remote (8%), and very remote (14%) areas.  For definitions of these terms, see my previous post and this map. This population distribution is very different from the non-Indigenous, urban centric population.  What causes this population and poverty discrepancy, and more importantly, how are the Australian state and federal governments addressing the problem? 

Indigenous Education

As of the 2011 census, Indigenous children comprised approximately 4.8 % of students, compared to Indigenous Australians comprising only 2.5% of the population.  This disparity is partly caused by higher fertility rates, but also because nearly all children of intermarriage are identified as Indigenous. Despite the higher proportion of Indigenous children, approximately 20% of Indigenous children failed basic literacy and numeracy tests. 

The failure of this 20% must be understood in light of diminishing goals under the Coalition of Australian Governments (COAG) (In 2008, the COAG changed the education goals from seeking to eliminate the gap between Indigenous and white Australians in 4 years to halving the gap between Indigenous and white Australians in 10 years--a pretty drastic change in goals).  See this for the full 2012 education report. 

A significant reason this policy shift has failed to reduce education gaps is that COAG identifies "Indignity" itself as the obstacle. In 2011, approximately $360 million was spent on "culturally appropriate" programs.  These programs basically take resources away from classroom instruction and divert it towards theatre specialists, puppeteers, and visual artists.  This money was essentially wasted. The states that spent the least on these programs were most successful in reducing the education gap.  Queensland spent $850 per student on these cultural programs and reduced the gap; whereas South Australia spent nearly $6000 per student on the cultural program and saw no change. 

The state of education is even worse in Indigenous schools--schools that enroll 75% or more Indigenous students. These schools enroll approximately 20,000 students, mainly in rural or remote areas without private sector employment and remain welfare dependent. Forty schools in the Northern Territory do not have a full time teacher every day of the week.  Across the board, these schools have a failure rate of 90%.  

Another 40,000 Indigenous students are enrolled "mainstream" schools with students from low socio-economic backgrounds, with high staff turnover and disciplinary problems.  
From 2011 to 2013, graduation rates and several other metrics improved slightly. However, in mid-level progress, there were significant gaps between Indigenous students and non-Indigenous students--nearly 61.6% literacy gap at schools in the Northern Territories. However, there was an improvement of 6.5% of Indigenous children attending the last year of schooling. 

In light of these slight improvements, the Australian government lowered the targets, to allow for 90% school attendance, and access to preschool for 95% of rural Indigenous populations under the age of 4.  Currently, 91% of these children have access to preschool.
In the 2015 COAG report, these education numbers remained disturbingly stagnant. For the full report, read this.  For the highlights, read on.  

Only two of the government's targets were met: halving the mortality rate for Indigenous children under 5 and halving the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children finishing school.  In effect, since 2008, there has been no progress in improving literacy or numeracy among Indigenous children.  The COAG report, in making recommendations to the federal government, suggested making preventative health, and access to healthcare overall, a priority in reducing the education gap between Indigenous and white Australians.

Indigenous Healthcare 

Indigenous Australians have a life expectancy approximately 10 years shorter than non-Indigenous Australians.  Indigenous people also have high levels of preventable, treatable, and chronic medical conditions in higher percentages than the non-Indigenous population, including:

• 3x the instances of diabetes
• 2x the instances of chronic kidney disease
• 4x the instances of advanced chronic kidney disease
• 3x (and rising) the instances of Hepatitis C

The prevalence of poorer health clearly track with increased poverty, increased homelessness, decreased education, and the remoteness of major Indigenous population centers. For a comprehensive overview of Indigenous Australian health, read this.  

Like the causes and irritating factors of poverty, the Indigenous health gap is caused by a variety of factors, including: insufficient housing, insufficient education, and insufficient access to health services.  Generally speaking, Indigenous Australians should access healthcare much more often than non-Indigenous Australians; but the reality only suggest a marginal increase in access.  The discrepancy in this access can be attributed to the remote nature--and understaffed and underfunded.  In fact, 26% of Indigenous Australians seeking access to health services reported barriers.  The barriers to access were underfunding (and consequently higher costs to patients) and understaffing (causing longer wait times). 

Access to general practitioners (GPs, or your standard physician who performs physicals and treats general ailments) and preventative medicine is perhaps the single greatest challenge--and opportunity--for Indigenous Australian health.  In the rural and remote areas, access to GPs decreases significantly the further one moves away from cities.  In addition, preventable hospitalizations in these regions remain stable across non-Indigenous populations, but skyrockets for Indigenous Australians (in remote areas, nearly 300/1000 Indigenous people. were hospitalized for preventable ailments, compared to 50/1000 non-Indigenous people). 

Improving the Quality of Life for Indigenous Australians

Indigenous Australians face significant challenges in both urban and rural environments, but a significant portion of Indigenous Australians live in rural areas.  Therefore, the challenges they face--access to education and healthcare, as well as increased instances of domestic violence (discussed in my last post)--are exacerbated by lack of well-funded services and the remote nature of the communities.  Access to education and healthcare must increase if there is to be a significant change in poverty statistics.  So what can the Australian government do?

Under the Abbott government, the federal government changed the way it funds Indigenous programs, from nearly 150 individual programs to 5-broader strategies.  This changed reduced the amount of red tape and the number of bureaucrats in Indigenous communities.  However, Indigenous leaders feel that the change is only half complete.  The leaders will soon meet with PM Turnbull to discuss further changes, but no firm date has been set.  In the meantime, Turnbull will continue with an Indigenous Affairs Council.  But it remains to be seen how the new government will tackle years of stagnant educational change.  And one thing remains abundantly clear, the Indigenous population faces significant challenges, compounded by the exceedingly rural nature of Rural communities. 

California and the rural way of life: Part II - Statewide ban on lead hunting ammunition

As I discussed in my previous post, many rural Californians (and rural people in general) distrust their own government and feel that they are not being represented by those in power (see here for Part I and links to other posts on this topic).  This is the second installment in a series of posts that focus on some of the complaints rural Californians have with the state government.  This post will focus on how the new statewide lead hunting ammunition ban in California is changing the rural California hunting culture.

In 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that banned the use of lead ammunition for hunting (see article here).  The law goes into effect this year, 2015, for state owned lands, and by 2019, the ban will be implemented statewide (see here).  California, unsurprising to many, was the first state to impose such a ban.  This new law was an extension of the pre-existing ban on lead ammunition for hunting in the territory of the endangered California Condor.  In addition to the ban on lead hunting ammunition in condor habitat, California also has had a ban on using lead ammunition for hunting waterfowl since 1991.  The statewide ban on lead ammunition was passed, according to Governor Brown and Assemblyman Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood), who proposed the legislation, because lead ammunition from hunters posed a threat to wildlife, the environment, and hunters' health (see article here).  I will discuss their reasoning below.  However, the Fish and Wildlife director is able to suspend the ban if the federal government outlaws non-lead ammunition due to its armor piercing capabilities, thus protecting citizens' ability to hunt in the state. 

The gripe that most people have with this ban is not grounded in a belief that an overabundance of lead in the environment can never be problematic.  Rather, for many, the issue is that people who are in opposition to this new legislation don't believe that there is a risk of overabundance of lead from hunters in the majority of the state's environment.  In places where there are issues with lead, hunters have no problem with changing the way they hunt.  For example, all of the hunters I know are perfectly fine with a ban on lead for waterfowl hunting.  Waterfowl hunting is generally stationary, as hunters usually hunt in a stand or blind for the day.  One group can potentially fire well over a hundred rounds a day into wetland areas (assuming a lot of missed shots, and plenty of birds).  In state wildlife areas, blinds can be filled three days a week for the entire season (15 weeks).  Over many years, a substantial amount of lead can build up in these areas and can cause serious environmental concerns.  Hunters want to continue to hunt waterfowl, and they understand that in order to have a sustainable population and a healthy environment, they must protect the birds' habitat.

In the case of the California Condor, most hunters are willing to sacrifice lead bullets in order to preserve this endangered species.  Since the 2009 reintroduction program, 23 condors have died due to lead poisoning (see here).  This is a considerable number considering the number of condors in California at the end of 2014 was just 128.  The total number of California Condors in the wild and in captivity is only 421 total (for a breakdown of populations, see here).  Groups such as the Ventana Wildlife Society educate hunters about problems arising from lead ammunition in condor territory and sometimes provide free non-lead ammunition to hunters making the switch from lead to copper.

This new law assumes three things: that a ban on lead hunting ammunition benefits the environment, human health, and wildlife.  I will discuss each assumption separately.  First, the state assumes that lead ammunition fired into the environment causes an overabundance of lead in the areas in which it is fired, which causes lead contamination.  This may be true in specific places that are used very frequently (like duck blinds), but most of these areas already have a ban on lead to prevent such problems.  When hunting larger game, the problem of over-accumulation does not exist as it does with waterfowl hunting.  The number of bullets fired during deer season is low when compared to duck hunting, and the area in which people hunt can cover hundreds of square miles.  In fact, many California big game hunters never fire a shot all season except for target practice, which under the new law is perfectly legal. 

The state asserts that lead fragments in wild game meat are a danger and health risk to humans that consume it.  Lead bullets can fragment when entering an animal.  Studies have shown that these lead fragments can be found in processed wild game meat (mostly ground deer meat).  However, there is no evidence that any person has ever gotten lead poisoning from eating wild game meat (see here).  Further, lead shot that is used to kill birds does not fragment.  The shot can easily be removed when cleaning the bird.  Even if one is missed, it is easily detectable when biting into the meat and can be spit out causing no harm to the person who found it (as long as they don't bite down too hard).

The state also assumes that this ban will benefit wildlife.  The argument is that when a hunter kills an animal, the gut pile left behind contains lead fragments (or an intact bullet).  When scavengers, such as coyotes, vultures, hawks, and eagles eat the gut pile, they ingest some of the lead.  This, in turn, can cause some animals to get lead poisoning (see articles here and here).  Additionally, in areas that are heavily hunted, birds such as doves, geese, and ducks can pick up lead shot when foraging, and this shot can wind up in the gizzard of the birds (the gizzard is the organ that grinds up the seeds/plants that the animals eat).  Birds will eat rocks to help with the grinding process and can easily mistake lead shot for rocks.  However, consumption of lead does not always end with lead poisoning or death. 

Many hunters do not trust non-lead ammunition to take down animals quickly and humanely.  There is a concern that copper bullets (for big game hunting) are not as accurate and do not have the knock-down power of lead.  This can be seen over and over on internet shooting forums.  I have also heard the same thing from hunters personally.  I know several people who say they have shot deer with copper bullets and said that the deer run for a long way before they die.  The concern is that lower accuracy and allowing the animal to run a long way before it dies will lead to lost animals.  If an animal is only wounded due to a bad shot or runs a long way, some hunters will not be able to find them.  Then the animal is killed for no reason, which bothers hunters and non-hunters alike.

The question thus becomes: what is more important, letting lead kill some birds and coyotes or letting some deer and other large game die for no reason?  Assuming that copper will lead to more "lost" deer, the question is not very easy to answer (see here for a copper bullet study).  If copper is really just as good as lead, then hunters will eventually come around.  However, there seems to be a lack of understanding among the hunting community about the reasons behind the ban.

Many hunters feel that this law was thrust upon them with no effort to consult with the hunting community.  They think the bans will do little to help an issue that is not really an issue.  In fact, the organization representing California game wardens was against this law, too.  They asserted that "there is insufficient data to justify such a drastic action across the entire state."  (see here).  That statement comes from the game wardens, whose job and duty is to protect our wild game and natural resources.

Many hunters feel that there is an ulterior motive for the ban.  California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and when this law was passed, 11 other gun control measures were also signed into law (see here for breakdown of the laws).  Only seven gun control measures were vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown that year.  Many see this as a backdoor tactic to take their guns away, or at least restrict the ability to use them.  Whether or not you agree with that sentiment, significant issues arise regarding access to ammunition because of this law.

Traditionally, hunting has brought considerable revenue to rural communities, as well as a significant percentage of meat some families eat.  This new law affects the cost of ammunition, employment, rural revenue, and tax revenue (see here).  The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) released a report that found that ammunition prices will likely rise by 284 percent for centerfire rounds, 294 percent for rimfire rounds (like .22 caliber), and shotshells by 387 percent.  Ammunition is already expensive for some, and with the price increases, it will push some people away from hunting.  The NSSF estimated that the higher ammunition prices will drive 36 percent of hunters away from the sport or reduce their overall participation.  Thirteen percent of California hunters said that they would stop hunting due to the increased ammunition prices, 23 percent said they would hunt less due to the new law, and 10 percent said they were unsure if they would continue to hunt.

Additionally, non-lead ammunition is hard to find.  In fact, non-lead ammunition is not available.  I was drawn for a deer hunt on state land this year.  Due to the new law, I cannot use my rifle because non-lead ammunition is not made for it.  My options were to buy a new gun (which is expensive, especially for someone living off of law school loans), or to borrow one.  Luckily I know enough people that borrowing wasn't too difficult.  For many people, however, neither option will work.  They are then forced to stop hunting or break the law.

The NSSF report also found that the projected loss of 13 percent of hunters (51,676) would negatively impact the economy.  Many rural areas depend on hunting season for a significant portion of their yearly revenue (see here).  A decrease of this amount of hunters can have a huge impact on small rural towns.  The report found that 1,868 jobs would be lost statewide, approximately $69 million in salaries and wages, and $19.7 million in federal and state tax revenue. 

This issue is not as black and white as some would believe.  Although the new law can benefit certain wildlife species in specific areas by reducing the ingestion of lead, there are also adverse effects.  The law can negatively effect rural economies by hindering people's ability to participate in the American tradition of hunting as well as their ability to put food on the table.  Most hunters want to do what is best for the environment.  However, the state government did not appear to consider the minimal impacts lead hunting ammunition has in many parts of the state nor the negative peripheral effects the new law has on hunters and rural communities.  To most hunters and rural people, the government appears to only be concerned with what the urban environmentalists want, at the expense of the rural minority.

For more posts on hunting as part of the American heritage, see here, here, and here.

California's methamphetamine problem

Methamphetamine is a drug known for occurring in rural America. It also, curiously, appears in rural parts of California. What is remarkable about California is that nearby states have significantly fewer labs than California.

In a 2011 article the claim is set forth that California's Central Valley is home to roughly 80% of the nation's meth labs and 97% of the nations superlabs.

These percentages are according to California Department of Justice’s “Clandestine Meth Labs” report. A “superlab” is a production facility that manufactures ten pounds or more of meth per batch, as compared to a typical one pound “stove top” batch; many superlabs have been found that produce fifty or more pounds per batch.

Factors that were included as being part of the surge in meth labs in California includes the relative remoteness of the Central Valley, the number of workers looking for work, the advantage of being within the national border (*thereby eliminating the need to smuggle drugs over the border), and the ability to acquire chemicals needed for drug manufacturing while pretending it's for agricultural needs. Drug cartels have been linked to the drug trade in the region as well, taking advantage of the 99 and 5 freeways that lead to major metropolitan areas.

Large tracts of farmland with isolated outbuildings are an ideal place to avoid detection, which is why the region is home to nearly all of the nation's "super labs," controlled by Mexican drug trafficking organizations, said John Donnelly, resident agent in charge of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration office in Fresno. (Source: USA Today)

Part of the reason given for the surge in meth labs includes the ongoing drug war in Mexico. The Wall Street Journal discusses how the ongoing drug war in Mexico has sent producers into a safer country where the authorities are caught unprepared to cope with a sudden influx of illegal substance manufacturing.

With the influx comes the usual economics of a market. Vice looked into the matter of the cartels and California's influx of meth. One agent told Vice that in 2008 meth was up to $10,000 per pound. As of January 2015, it was down to $3,500 a pound. One theory that was floated in the Vice article is that the cartels are producing the drug where overhead costs and ricks are lower. This dovetails with the factors mentioned above which included the lack of border crossing. The drugs can flow freely within the state without passing over a formal check point where a criminal enterprise might be discovered.

One issue with the labs is drug acquisition. The federal government has sought to limit the ability to buy the drugs needed to make meth. This has included a cap on how much one individual can buy at a pharmacy. However, as can be seen in this ABC7 article we see that the labs turned to "smurfing". Large groups of individuals go to pharmacies, buy the required over the counter drugs and then give the drugs to the lab. Pharmacies do not share information with one another so the pharmacies will take the buyer's name down and look at a picture identification, and the buyer is free to go to the next pharmacy, without the first pharmacy warning the second.

Unlike marijuana I would contest that methamphetamine is a very real danger to communities. USA Today discussed some of the effects methamphetamine can have on a person's mind and body. Effects can last 50 times longer than cocaine and include hallucinations, impaired cognitive functions, and deterioration of the brain. It can cause people to be more violent towards people around them, enhance depression, and lead to tragedies, which USA Today outlines in depth.

It is well established that rural areas tend to be ignored, given their lack of significant population, remoteness, and the myriad of issues that are present in metropolitan areas that are addressed before the legislature looks to rural areas. That said, the problems stemming from the Central Valley can flow to Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. It would behoove the legislature to look into how to get good paying jobs back into the area, better medical care, and crack down thoroughly on the industry that feels safe setting up shop in the midst of the state.

Further discussion on drugs and the crime that accompanies the drug trade can be found here, here, and here.

An interesting contrast

This is just a quick notice from Hack (a lovely program that you all should listen to).

Toowoomba, a town of about 114,000 people 78 miles from Brisbane. And while not rural, it does serve as a regional gateway to the Queensland interior. The interesting part for me was the difference in government attitude, as expressed by street artist Ian Mccallum, "When I was growing up, people would move to Brisbane to paint - but the government just dominates people there. Out here, you can pretty much paint wherever you want."

Anyways, just a thought about the difference between truly urban centers and regional centers in Australia.

Rural California and herding

Until recently I had no idea that migrant sheep herders existed in California. Most people are aware that there are ranches, that there are cattle drives moving animals from grazing land to slaughterhouses, but I don't think anyone considered that a state known for its cities and strong economy would have migrating herds. Further, that those herds are slowly dying out, with a combination of drought, aging work force, and undercutting imports. Amazingly, significant numbers of these herds come from my own home county of Kern, and neighboring counties that are part of the Central Valley in California.

As this Vice article discusses, the work force was originally largely based on the backs of immigrants from the Basque region of Europe. Immigrants would, on the recommendation of friends and family, migrate to California and begin herding sheep in exceedingly crude conditions. Those immigrants are now aging and not being replaced with younger workers. It is likely that the U.S. government will have to resume a practice from the late 90's and issue herding visas so that employers can bring in foreign workers and exploit the desperation and hopes of outsiders for personal profit.

The U.S. has a visa system that allows employers to file for extra help when none can be found in the local community. UC Davis actually has a relevant article on the subject. The author notes that in the mid-1990s:

Prevailing wages for H-2A shepherds were $600 to $700 monthly in the mid-1990s. Shepherds are provided with a trailer, and either cooking facilities or food. Sheep operators paying $700 monthly to shepherds have total labor costs of about $880--the additional $180 is the amortized cost of transportation, workers compensation and WRA costs.

The WRA is the Sacramento based Western Range Association, which maintains the job orders that need to be filled. When the article was written they were based in Sacramento, but since then it appears the association has left the state. All that exists online is a poorly done blog with a singular post in 2014. Of note in the post is bemoaning the issues of paying for

To complicate the matter, U.S. trade policies have harmed the rural areas. Already impoverished and having issues with fair wages, full time employment, and access to education, rural areas are being undercut by overseas markets. As an example, referencing the above Vice article: lamb from Australia and New Zealand makes up roughly half of the U.S.'s annual lamb consumption. It can be produced, packaged, and shipped to the U.S. for less than what it costs to produce and package in the U.S. by the farm workers.

Part of this cost may come from the equipment used. As noted in this NPR article on rural livelihoods, herders use trucks and trailers to herd animals from the ranches into the mountains, where grazing ranges allow for large groups of animals to forage. Obviously the cost of vehicle maintenance, fuel, and sticking the trailers will sap the limited wages of the workers.

In the late 1990's the monthly rate for herders was less than $1,000. Roughly one third of H-2A visas filed by employers seeking foreign employees who would work a job described as a, "man, dog, and a rifle."This is surprising given rural areas are notorious for high unemployment and minimal wages, that employers need to look abroad for labor.

In that search abroad employers went to the aforementioned Basque region in Spain for the initial group of shepherds. This article discusses the history of that search. At that point in time Spain was in an economic crisis and bringing immigrants over was relatively easy. As Spain's economy strengthened ranchers turned to South American nations and began bringing Peruvians in. Unfortunately for the herders life was worse in the U.S. than back in Peru. As one worker said, "Even in Peru we don't live like this." California workers made $1,200 per month as of 2002. Consider however that the job requires being with the herd 24/7, in the field, constantly working and in conditions described as 'squalid'.

Things that would help: better studies, more interviews with the shepherds, and trying to get more data out of the ranchers who have the advantage of relative anonymity. People never ask where their food comes from or how it was raised. Exposing the fact that the shepherds suffer greatly from the free trade deals and live in conditions worse than a third world country would be a good start.

There does not appear to be much discussion of herding visas in the blog at large, but some discussion on agribusiness abusing workers can be found here and here.

"Why the left isn't talking about rural American poverty"

That is the headline for a story that appeared last week on In These Times Rural America Blog.  Here's the lede:  

Within the popular American conscience—arguably a close reflection of the mainstream media—there are two favored focal points for discussing the problem of poverty. The first is within the urban, inner city context—often conflated with black poverty—which has held a critical role in American political and cultural discourse throughout most of the past century. The second is the poverty of the Global South: Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, South Asia, and the rest of the developing world. 

What seldom gets talked about—and when it is, often with irreverent humor and contempt—is the poverty of rural America, particularly rural white America: Appalachia, the Ozarks, the Mississippi Delta, the Dakotas, the Rio Grande Valley, the Cotton Belt.

I am quoted in the piece, including this: 

We tend to associate rural poverty with whiteness…When we think about rural poverty, most associations with rural poverty are with white populations and in fact, that is true to some extent but it’s actually far from being monochromatic.

* * *

For better or worse, when we talk about poverty, we focus on black poverty, and we focus on Hispanic poverty. We’ve collapsed our nation’s poverty problem into our nation’s racism problem, and it leads us to turn a blind eye to rural poverty.

Gurley also quotes me where she says that some dismiss white poverty under the implicit belief “that when whites live in poverty, it is their fault, or even their choice.”

Then, yesterday, this piece appeared on NonProfit Quarterly, "Some Reasons Behind Societal Neglect of Rural Poverty--and Rural America," by Rick Cohen.  Cohen contrasts our national neglect of rural poverty with the excitement often generated by urban issues.  He writes:  

Generally progressive political observers and analysts such as Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institution have long placed an emphasis on urban over rural.

* * *

[T]here is little question that the stories about revitalizing urban areas have captured the imagination of politicians and of philanthropists. The concept articulated in Katz’s WSJ article is not hugely different from Katz’s earlier expression of the concept of “MetroNations,” which looked at investments in the 100 largest metropolitan areas as the key drivers for investment for national economic progress and sustainability. 

N.B.  Katz has, in his advocacy for urban investment, occasionally been openly harsh and dismissive of rural America.  He was the co-author of a 2008 piece titled, "Village Idiocy:  Enough with Small-Town Triumphalism," in the New Republic.  

I especially like Cohen's closing thoughts because they take up the rural-urban philanthropy gap:

Gurley and her sources are probably correct that much of the liberal/left has written off rural poverty as a concern. To assert that philanthropy isn’t immune from that anti-rural bias isn’t to point out a moral shortcoming among foundation leaders. But foundations, unlike presidential candidates, can make choices that are not tied to the ballot box. They can think deeply about issues and support strategies meant to be fair and equitable for people in need, in both rural and urban areas, regardless of the attitudes rural Americans might carry into the voting booth. Reducing societal inequity cannot happen by writing off rural Americans.

Domestic violence in rural Australia

An Epidemic of Violence:

The Australian political landscape is obsessed with tackling domestic violence in all its contexts.  In February 2015, the Queensland state government commissioned Not Now, Not Ever: Putting an End to Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland.  The report was commissioned, in part, by a dramatic rise in the number in reported domestic violence incidents--from 58,000 in 2011-2012 to 66,000 in 2013-14, or more than180 incidents a day.  Across Australia, a women is killed by her partner on average, once a week.

After the report was issued, it a took a "horror week" for the Queensland government to fast-track the 140 reforms suggested by the report.  The week in question saw 2 women and a 6-year-old girl killed in separate incidents.  One of the instances involved a former partner ramming the woman's car off the road and beating her to death with a steel pipe.

Outside of Queensland, other Australian states have seen similar increases in violence.  In Victoria, familial violence increased from 735 per 100,000 incidents in 2010-11 to 1,195 per 100,000 incidents in 2013-14.  Of the 70,911 reported incidents, more than 75% involved a female victim.

Clearly, domestic violence is on the rise, and the Australian political climate is unwilling to tolerate it.  But, what are states doing, and more importantly, how does the rise, and the state response, impact domestic violence in Australia's vast rural spaces?

Federal and state responses

The opposition Labour Party wrote newly elected Prime Minister Martin Turnbull reiterating support for eradication of domestic violence in Australia.  The Labour Party wants to hold a national summit on the issue, an idea backed by the Queensland Premier, while the Liberal Party remains noncommittal on the usefulness of the summit.  Former PM Tony Abbot was open to the concept, but was ousted before any more was said on the matter.  Shortly after Turnbull's election, the government announced $100 million for domestic violence programs.

Outside of the federal response, Queensland is fast-tracking reforms (see above).  On October 13, New South Wales initiated a $60 million program to focus on domestic violence prevention and minimize reoffenders.  The funding includes a police team to keep tabs on high-risk perpetrators.

Finally, Western Australia is implementing a $3.1 million program to tackle domestic violence in Kimberley. Kimberley is a remote territory on the northwest coast of Western Australia, with a population of about 34,000.  Only 3 towns have a population over 2,000, and none of those exceed 13,000.  The program is focused on the the problem of domestic violence in Aboriginal communities: about 40% of Kimberley's population is Aboriginal.  And indigenous women are 3 times as likely as other women to be assaulted.  The program is supposed to be grounded in Aboriginal law & culture.  And don't worry, a full post dedicated to rural issues surrounding Aboriginal communities in Australia is coming Monday, November 2.

Domestic violence in rural Australia

Australia has a domestic violence problem-from Sydney to Kimberley--and the federal and state governments are addressing it in the only way large scale institutions know how: talking and throwing money.  But, how does that money trickle down into the rural areas?  And what unique challenges do domestic violence victims/survivors confront in rural Australia?

Of the $100 million dollars announced by the federal government, $15 million will establish 12 hubs or "hotspots" around Australia.  These are collections of lawyers, social workers, health professionals, and cultural liaisons to aid survivors.  Of those centers, 6 will be in regional/rural areas.  Well, thank goodness the federal government realizes that domestic violence is a serious issue in rural communities.

And a quick word on the terms regional, remote, and rural. Standard Australian statistical practice defines remoteness using road distance from services.  There are: major cities, inner regional, outer regional, remote, and very remote regions.  The map attached to the link will help give you an idea of how these regions are distributed throughout Australia.  As of 2009, 69% (15.1 million) of Australia families lived in major cites, 20% (4.3 million) in inner regional areas, 9% (2.1 million) in outer regional areas, 1.5% (324,000) in remote areas, and 0.8% (174,000) in very remote areas.

Unfortunately, Australia's national data does not help place domestic violence in a geographical context. The last federal government report I was able to find is over 15 years old.  And the rate for domestic violence against women in remote areas was 20.86/1000.  In rural centers or rural areas, it ranged between 6-9.95/1000. In urban areas, that number ranged between 4-5/1000.  In 2000, domestic violence occurred nearly twice as often in rural areas, and nearly 4 times as often in remote areas, as it did in urban areas.  As domestic violence rates have increased in the past 15 years, I shudder to think what those numbers look like now.  The report then analyzed the contributing factors to increased incidences in rural violence, with the insights being:

• isolation 
• firearms
• inaccessible legal systems and responses
• under resourced small police stations
• fear
• economic insecurity
• lack of dedicated social services.

This reads like a list that I, and perhaps most readers, would intuitively associate with rural America.  So it seems that domestic violence, no matter what nation it occurs in, becomes exacerbated by the spatial and institutionalized (the inability of government to adequately provide services comparable to more densely populated areas coupled with residents' self-sufficient mindsets) isolation of the rural.

Despite the lack of government statistics and resources (and hopefully, that changes as both the federal government and state governments pour resources into rural and regional centers), several non-profits, like the National Rural Women's Coalition currently help rural domestic violence survivors, primarily through information distribution.  That organization is dedicated to helping bridge the isolation felt by rural women, and they have a handy fact sheet for domestic violence survivors.  It describes the physical obstacles: gates, bulls, dogs, more gates, and guns, faced by responders to domestic violence.  It describes community attitudes (small town gossip, conservatism), high demand for services, underfunding, spatial distance between communities, and access to information as primary issues.

I can only imagine what rural women go through when faced with domestic violence--the paltry resources available, coupled with the sheer distances involved in rural Australia, is shameful.  And, with the factors enumerated by the both the government and NRWC for the increased incidences of violence in rural communities, I am sure it is a scenario that plays out across rural areas around the world, including here in the United States.  What remains to be seen is how best to allocate resources to ameliorate the isolation and lack of access to services.

For more on domestic violence and sexual assault in the American rural context, read: this (it also helps keep you up on pop culture--I won't do that) and this (its not only indigenous Australians who experience a disproportionate amount of domestic violence).  For a fantastic paper on the subject, read Lisa Pruitt's "Place Matters: Domestic Violence and Rural Difference," available here.