Colorado’s gray wolf reintroduction and the challenge for rural ranchers

Colorado Proposition 114 (or the Gray Wolf Reintroduction Initiative) passed narrowly in the 2020 election (by just 1.82%), causing a significant impact on rural communities. The Gray Wolf Reintroduction Initiative aimed to reintroduce gray wolves into western regions of Colorado. The proposition raised concerns about potential conflicts and disruptions to rural ways of life in the region.

Supporters of Proposition 114 emphasized the ecological benefits of reintroducing gray wolves, such as restoring natural predator-prey dynamics and promoting biodiversity. Organizations such as The Rocky Mountain Wolf Project raised over $2 million in support of Proposition 114. Their efforts were successful, but only in more urban areas. On the county level, 51 of Colorado’s 64 counties voted “no.” Notably, major opponents were the rural counties where the wolf reintroduction would happen.

Opponents of the proposition within rural communities raised valid concerns about the impacts of wolf reintroduction. They stressed the wolves’ threat to livestock, which would cause economic hardships for ranching families. Livestock depredation was seen as a significant risk that could result in financial losses, negatively impacting the rural economy.

Rural residents, particularly those engaged in hunting, were also concerned about the potential effects of gray wolves on big game populations. Hunting is not only a recreational activity of cultural significance, it is also an important economic driver in many rural areas. Decreased hunting opportunities due to wolf predation could have negative consequences for local businesses, outfitters, and the broader hunting community.

As it turns out, rural residents were justified in their concerns about the reintroduction of the gray wolves. Since wolves were protected under state law and the 2022 update to the federal Endangered Species Act, ranchers have been left with virtually no option to protect their livestock.

A rancher in Jackson County (population 1,363) is quoted in this 2022 report about the significant impact the reintroduction is having on his life. He cites a lack of sleep, loss of cattle, and fear for his personal safety as “wolves have lost their fear of humans.” This story is becoming all too common with article after article about livestock ranches being attacked and destroyed by wolf packs. In some cases, even family pets are getting killed. More stories can also be found in this earlier post.

As these wolf attacks continue to incite fear and devastation in these rural Colorado communities, rancher attempts to work with Proposition 114 supporters have started to decline. Originally, ranchers did their best to comply with no-kill laws. They even supported additional bills, such as SB23-255 (Wolf Depredation Compensation Fund) and SB23-256 (Management of Gray Wolves Reintroduction), and accepted government assistance to help mitigate their struggles. Although these bills would allow ranchers to receive (below market value) compensation for livestock lost and would require the reintroduction plan to be approved federally, ranchers are finding this assistance inadequate. As such, while attacks begin to increase, chances of a working partnership between ranchers and Gray Wolf Reintroduction supporters have diminished.

We look now to see if legislators will work with impacted stakeholders to solve this problem, as more wolf packs are set to be reintroduced this year. For now, the battle over this bill rages on.

Rural states that cry “Wolf!”

After hundreds of years of eradication by unrestricted hunting and habitat destruction, the grey wolf population in the United States has been making a small comeback.

The Federal Government, under the Endangered Species Act, has sought to reintroduce wolves to areas that can support them. These efforts have been limited to very rural areas with lots of remote federal or state controlled land because wolves need space, natural food sources, and limited human interaction to thrive.

It is estimated that the U.S. has well over 9,000 wolves. Alaska has the most with an estimated 6,000 to 7,000 wolves. Minnesota has about 2,900 with some spreading out into Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan. Both of these states never lost their native populations and were deemed not in danger of extinction. Both have been allowed to manage their wolf populations with limited federal intervention, management that includes limited hunting.

Problems have arisen, however, in states that have had wolves successfully reintroduced: Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. Wolves were wiped out in all three, but through reintroduction and some natural migration from Canada, an estimated 1,700 wolves now roam in the Northern Rockies and Yellowstone National Park today, up from an estimated 1,200 in 2006.

The original federal plan was to bring the wolf population in the Rockies up to 300. The plan was crafted with input from ranchers, land owners, conservationists, and animal rights activists about the impact wolves would have on local areas and the conditions needed for successful reintroduction.

The success of the protection plan created a population nearly six times the originally planned 300. The population is now big enough to prompt the federal government to remove the wolf from the protection list in those states and call the effort a great success. The de-listing gave the states the right to manage wolves in all areas within their borders except within the boundaries of Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks.

When the wolf was first de-listed in 2008, all three states rushed to implement the wolf management plans that they had submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife prior to the de-listing. All three states submitted plans that included hunting wolves. These pro-hunting plans came about in part because of intense pressure from ranchers (angry about livestock killed by wolves) and hunters (both hunters who wanted to hunt wolves and hunters who complained of reduced populations of other game animals because of wolf predation).

These plans came under intense scrutiny by animal rights groups. These groups sued to stop the hunts. Federal District Court Judge Donald Molloy agreed with the animal activists that the revised plan violated the Endangered Species Act and issued an injunction to stop the planned hunts and state management of the wolves. Judge Molloy deemed the populations were too fragile to be managed by the states and opined that the wolves required continued protection by the federal government.

Before leaving office, the Bush Administration again removed the wolf from the protected list in January 2009, but did agree that Wyoming’s wolf population was too weak to support hunting and kept those wolves on this list. Judge Molloy countered in 2010, finding again that the plans violated the Endangered Species Act, but not before planned wolf hunts occurred in Montana and Idaho in 2009. In response to Judge Molloy’s second ruling, U.S. Senator Jon Tester (MT) and U.S. Representative Mike Simpson (ID) added a provision to a 2011 spending bill that again de-listed wolves in Idaho and Montana. This of course has spawned a new round of lawsuits. A U.S. District Court judge in Montana granted a summary judgment in favor of the government on August 3, 2011. Yet the judgment is sure to be appealed.

The ruling caused quite a row about federalism, separation of powers, and the role of law in conservation efforts. A friend of mine once asked “who is better at wildlife management: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the respective state agencies filled with biologists and game management experts… or is it a Federal judge with no ‘practical’ experience?” Of course my friend conveniently forgot that Judge Molloy was a native and lifelong resident of Montana who probably has lots of “practical” rural legal experience.

There is a lot of anger and rhetoric being tossed around. Rural Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are heavily dependent on ranching and hunting for revenue. Ranchers are angry about predation by wolves that not only kill valuable stock, but also put stress on living stock that results in lost weight and health. Hunters are angry because wolves have put a large dent in elk and deer populations in some wilderness areas, prompting them to find other places to hunt. Elk hunts generate between $600 and $1,000 per hunter in fee revenue alone, let alone the private economic impact of guide and butchering profits. The temptation of fees gathered for wolf licenses and tags in already cash strapped states is also a factor for states.

States also face the conflict of trying to return wilderness areas to their pre-white settlement state. Most Americans want the wild places of U.S. to be as vibrant as the once were, and that vibrant picture should include wolves. To the surprise of some, many hunters side with protecting a healthy wild wolf population. But the size of that population and how to manage it is the dividing force.

Ed Bangs, the man who was in charge of the area's wolf reintroduction for 16 years, stated in 2011 upon his retirement from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that “The best science clearly documents that wolves are fully recovered and will not be threatened in the future. We are rock solid… It’s time to move on.” ( Bugle, Vol. 28, Issue 5, Pg. 63, Sep/Oct 2011) But it is unclear in the emotional and legal tug-o-war that is occurring in this rural area if we ever will move on. And as wolves are being reported in Oregon and Washington, it is a struggle that appears will be affecting more rural areas in the future.

See these related posts:

Legal lines from the rural Rockies

Shotgun stimulus: the economics of hunting

California deploys new plan to prevent wolf attacks in north state

Grey wolves returned to California more than a decade ago, and conflicts between ranchers and wolves are becoming more common, especially in far northern California, where most of the state's wolf packs are.  Jack Dolan of the Los Angeles Times reported in April on wolf attacks on livestock in far northern California here, and a recent story about Shasta County declaring a state of emergency over wolf attacks is here.  (Prior posts about wolves in California are here.)  

Now, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has announced plan to help ranchers, who have lost 58 livestock to wolves in the past year.  Here's an excerpt from Manola Secaira's story for Capital Public Radio: 

The CDFW’s plan, guided by endangered species regulations, currently only allows ranchers to ward off wolves using non-lethal tactics, like making loud noises,shining bright lights or electric fencing. But Weston Roberti and other ranchers say this isn’t working.

* * * 

The state compensates ranchers for proven losses. But Axel Hunnicut, the state’s gray wolf coordinator, says this uncertainty still carries weight for ranchers.

“You could imagine someone wondering, like, ‘Shoot, what is my future?’” Hunnicut says. “Especially when that compensation pot is not well funded.”

And it’s not the only cost. Hunnicut says wolf attacks can stress out cattle. That can lead to weight loss, and fewer calves, which also hurts ranchers’ bottom line.

* * * 

Although ranchers aren’t currently able to harm wolves when scaring them off, that could change. Earlier this year, the state’s conservation plan for gray wolves entered into its second phase. As part of that shift, the state now has the option to allow more aggressive tactics, called “injurious harassment.”

“Injurious harassment means the animal can actually be harmed,” Hunnicut says. “Not harmed to the point that it could be lethal, but harmed in that it would get a negative stimulus.”

He says that could include the use of rubber bullets and bear spray.

Amaroq Weiss, the Center for Biological Diversity’s senior wolf advocate, says she understands the need to move to more aggressive tactics – but only if ranchers have already tried the non-harmful ones.

“For me, what's most important is to first of all, not have that be your first reaction,” she says.

* * *

[California] is home to nearly 40 million people. Kaggie Orrick, a researcher with UC Berkeley’s California Wolf Project, says this makes California a unique case when dealing with wolf conflicts.

“There’s a lot more people here. There’s a different prey base. There’s a lot less open area,” Orrick says. “While we are able to draw support and understanding from other states that do have wolves … California might be a little bit different.”

Since April, four counties in Northern California have declared a state of emergency due to the increasing presence of wolves: Modoc, Sierra, Plumas and Shasta.

Paul Roenn, a supervisor with Sierra County, says some community members have reported seeing wolves walking around outside their homes.

“The interactions have escalated to the point where you can see that it's going to become a public safety issue,” Roen says. “We have to get some expanded deterrence because what we're doing isn't working.”

* * * 

On June 9, the CDFW launched a summer strike team as part of a new pilot effort to curb gray wolf attacks on livestock. The agency says the team will provide round-the-clock aid for ranchers experiencing frequent conflicts with wolves. They’ll also be providing training and help livestock producers create management plans to mitigate future conflicts.

The pilot also allows CDFW staff to use more aggressive tools when handling wolves, like the rubber bullets and bear spray, although these options are still currently unavailable to ranchers.

Here is the Sacramento Bee's coverage of the new CDFW plan.  Read here about how Colorado is dealing with inevitable conflicts between ranchers and wolves.  

Shoot, shovel, and shut up

The "3S's", or "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up", is a term commonly heard among many rural ranchers. It is becoming even more common among those situated near habitats of predatory animals such as wolves, mountain lions, and bears. It's a motto that generally captures the rural attitude of self reliance and independence. The policy of "shoot, shovel, and shut up" is very often attributed to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.

President Nixon signed the ESA into law in order to protect various species of animals and plants from extinction. Many conservationists attribute the survival of many animals such as the Grey Wolf, manatee, Grizzly bear, and the bald eagle to the implementation of the ESA. It's true that many animal populations have increased since the ESA was put into effect, but the existence of the ESA has created other problems for endangered animals that wander too close to human's property.

The Grey wolf is one of ESA's greatest comeback stories, having been officially removed from the ESA's list on March 28, 2008. Many critics of the ESA question whether the Grey wolf should have been protected by the ESA to begin with. Currently there are approximately 9,000 Grey wolves in the United States, and that number is rising. The Grey wolf's population of 9,000 does seem small, but what's often overlooked is the fact that approximately 60,000 of them are roaming in Canada. Part of the ESA also involved reintroducing animals back to an area they had once inhabited. Grey wolves were eventually reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park and all over Idaho. As they flourished in their new homes, they often clashed with the current residents, mainly farmers, ranchers, and hunters. Additional info concerning the Grey wolf can be read in rural states that cry, "Wolf!".

Although no attacks on a human have been reported, the number of attacks on livestock and other local game has increased. The ESA has a $1,000,000 budget to help compensate ranchers and pet owners of any proven predation by the wolves, but many local communities see it as more of a hassle to obtain than any consolation for their loss. From this the "3S's" were born. Rather than deal with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the process to either obtain compensation for a loss or to seek relief from menacing wolves, people are taking care of the wolves in their own way.

Shoot, shovel, and shut up became a common suggestion when asked what to do with problem wolves. Although northern Idaho Sheriff Giddings doesn't explicitly endorse the shooting of wolves, it appears he doesn't see it as a bad thing either. To outsiders it seems cruel, but the residents of Grangeville, Idaho saw it as a solution to their wolf problem. Other rural communities share similar sentiment. T-shirts and stickers have even made in support of doing so.

On April 8, 2011 Idaho lawmakers approved a bill that would allow the state to kill any wolves they felt posed a danger to people, livestock, and property. The bill was passed with the support of residents from all parts of Idaho. Many complained of the cost and threat to livestock, others told stories of being in personal danger from wolves. The loss of tourism was also included as a reason to rid the state of some wolves. The bill will hopefully do what it is intended to do by reducing the need for citizens to shoot, shovel and shut up, while still allowing wolves to inhabit the area.

Similar problems between rural residents and Grizzly bears have been discussed in these blog entries: Rural burdens to bear(s) and The uninformative rural mystique.

Another animal closely related the ESA and the "3S's" is the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. The Red-cockaded Woodpecker makes its home in old growth pine trees, usually trees that are older than 70 years. Being listed by the ESA, the woodpecker's habitat of old growth pine trees has been fiercely protected, both from average landowners hoping to clear space on their property and from timber companies harvesting trees for profit. With the woodpecker's habitat in mind, the ESA's goal was to save as much of it as possible from destruction. The idea has often backfired, as property owners are harvesting trees earlier than normal in an effort to harvest the trees before the woodpeckers move in. Other landowners are following the "3S's" and getting rid of birds when they are first spotted in order to retain control over their property.

The ESA has left a bitter taste in many rural residents' mouths as it often restricts what they can do with their property or in defense of it. Many view it as an intrusion by the federal government where it doesn't belong. Bill HO343 was Idaho's fix for what they viewed as a state problem. It remains to be seen if other states will follow or if Idaho made the correct decision. Time will tell if the ESA has done what it was designed to do or if a new approach will more fully protect endangered species from rural residents simply shooting, shoveling, and shutting up.

Wisconsin law will permit wolf hunting, over Indian objections

James Gorman wrote for the New York Times last week about Indian opposition to a new Wisconsin law that will permit wolf hunting. The Wisconsin legislature passed the law on Tuesday, by a vote of 69-25. Republicans and a few Democrats supported the law, while American Indian interests, some Democrats, and environmentalists opposed it.

The authorization for the hunt comes as the state's population of gray wolves has grown to about 800; a professor of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison estimates that the state's "carrying capacity" for wolves is 1,000. Wolves in the Great Lakes region were removed from the federal endangered species list just a couple of months ago.

Gorman's piece in the NYT last Monday addressed the American Indian opposition to the hunt. He explained that the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Game Commission represents the 11 Ojibwe tribes of Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin. The Ojibwe--also known as the Chippewa and Anishinaabe--have significant wildlife management rights in the area where the wolves live, but they say they were not consulted on the hunting plans, contrary to treaty requirements.

The tribes' opposition to the hunt is based on religious tradition and principle. James Zorn, the executive administrator of the commission, testified to both legislative houses:

In the Anishinaabe creation story, we are taught that Ma'iingan (wolf) is a brother to Original man. The health and survival of the Anishinaabe people is tied to that of Ma'iingan.

* * *

Mr. Zorn said in his testimony that for the Ojibwe, "wolf recovery does to hinge primarily upon some mnimum number of animals comprising the current wolf population." Rather, he said, the gaol is "the healthiest and most abundant future for our brother and ourselves."

Gorman also quotes Joe Rose, Sr., a professor emeritus of Native American studies at Northland College in Ashland, Wis., and an elder of the Bad River Band. Rose said he "saw a collision of world views" in this dispute over wolf hunting. Gorman goes on to the compare the Ojibwe opposition to the hunt to objections to funding for abortions or birth control, which have recently been the object of a great deal of political and media attention. He writes:

What is clear is that the opposition of the Ojibwe is more like objections to funding for abortions or birth control than it is the calculations of scientists, not in political tone, but in its essence.

Wolf v. man

Don't miss NPR's feature, Wolves at the Door:  Can Two Top Predators Co-Exist in the American West?  It raises plenty of legal issues.  Reporter Nathan Rott, who grew up in Montana, notes that wolf watching in Yellowstone National Park, which straddles Wyoming and Montana, "pumps about $35 million into the economies of communities around the park."  Yet 95% of gray wolves live outside the park.  In Montana, the gray wolf has already been removed from the endangered species list.  There, many support wolf hunting because wolves kill cattle, sheep and elk.  Rott reports:

To bring wolf numbers down, hunting quotas have been raised, and the cost of hunting licenses has dropped: Montana residents can kill up to five wolves every season, and the licenses are only $19 a piece. 

But there’s a reason it’s called hunting and not killing: Only about 1 percent of wolf hunters actually succeed.

Powerful story out of Colorado: ranchers v wolves, and what that battle reveals about rural v. urban

This Colorado Sun story "Wolves, ranchers, and the law," is a doozie, any way you slice or dice it.  Jennifer Brown reports out of Walden, population 609, in the North Park region of the state.  Wolves are killing cattle there, and ranchers are furious, not least because the state voted in 2020 to re-introduce wolves.  

Of course, at its core, this is an old story--the conflict between ranchers who wish to protect their cattle and conservationists who wish to protect the wolves.  The Colorado Sun piece features the Gittleson family, in particular, who've recently lost three head of cattle and had another cow injured in a wolf attack.  The whole story is very much worth a read, but I'm just going to highlight the part about how ranchers feel they are treated--by urbanites and the law--reflected mostly in quotes from Gittleson family members:

North Park is ground zero in Colorado’s wolf controversy. Almost no one here supported the 2020 ballot measure to reintroduce wolves to the state. And now that the wolves have arrived on their own, wandering across the Wyoming state line and helping themselves to cattle, residents here are wondering whether the city dwellers who voted to bring back wolves will finally understand what they’ve been saying.

“I don’t think they care, no matter what we say to them,” said Kim Gittleson, sitting at her kitchen table with tired eyes after another night on wolf watch. “These cows are our living. We don’t want to see that happen to our cows, not just because it’s our livelihood. It’s just sad to see any animal tortured that way that you cared for.”

 
It would be easier, many locals say, to “shoot, shovel and shut up” when wolves prey on their livestock, although getting caught shooting a protected species could mean a $100,000 fine and a year in jail. The Gittlesons, though, said they are reporting every wolf sighting and attack to their local Colorado Parks and Wildlife agents, seeking government compensation for their dead cows, and asking for help to scare the pack away from the ranch.

* * *

“If we wanted to shoot the wolves, we could have stopped this day one,” Dave Gittleson said. “We could’ve gone out there and wiped out the pack. Done. But that’s not a long-term solution. Don’t shoot the wolves. Everything we just lost would be for nothing.”

Instead, North Parkers are working together to protect their cattle — and to make a point.

Don Gittleson, who runs the ranch alone on weekdays while his wife and son work other jobs more than an hour away in Steamboat Springs, is exhausted from staying up most of the night for weeks. They’re hoping Colorado Parks and Wildlife will come through on hiring a range rider, someone to patrol the ranch in the dark, but they have their doubts.

It makes the Gittlesons chuckle that the state would require the range rider to have a COVID vaccination. It’s just one more example, they say, of how urban Colorado and its government does not “get” them, seeing as how the range rider would sit alone on a four-wheeler or in a truck on a ranch in the middle of nowhere.

Like the infamous “MeatOut Day” controversy of last spring and the proposed ballot measure that would have defined artificial insemination of cows as a criminal sex act, the wolf debate has widened the cultural divide. Ranchers feel their way of life is under attack, or at the least, misunderstood.

“It’s not just a Democrat-versus-Republican divide. It’s urban versus rural,” said Coby Corkle, who grew up in Walden and is a Jackson County commissioner. “Rural Colorado is really just trying to hold on.”

Gov. Jared Polis is not popular here. Neither is First Gentleman Marlon Reis, an animal rights advocate. North Park ranchers were fuming last week after governor-appointed State Board of Veterinary Medicine member Ellen Kessler called ranchers “lazy and nasty” and accused them of using a cow to bait wolves in a comment on Reis’ Facebook page. They cheered when she apologized and resigned from the board a few days later.

The sentiment up here, in the “Moose Viewing Capital of Colorado,” is made clear by a sign east of Walden. “If you voted for reintroduction of wolves,” it says, “Do not recreate here. You are not welcome!”

The rancher's talk about "shoot, shovel and shut up," reminds me of this post from a student more than a decade ago.  That student had grown up in rural Idaho and was a former law enforcement officer there, which gave him a distinct perspective I was glad he shared on the blog.   

Wolves in Colorado

In the 1940s the Grey Wolf was hunted to local extinction in Colorado by locals who were fearful of the dangers wolves poised to livestock, and for the overhunting of Elk populations by the wolves. 

80 years later, in 2020, Colorado voters in a close election voted to reintroduce wolves. Proposition 114, which aimed to reintroduce wolves was passed by a split of 50.91/49.09. It was not the first attempt to reintroduce the apex predator to the centennial state. Previous measures to bring wolves back to Colorado had failed in the years prior, crucially in 2016 when the Colorado Parks and Wildlife commission had voted against reintroducing wolves (citing the impact it might have on big game hunting and ranching in the state). The election was crucial and historical- it was the first time a state, not the federal government, had taken steps to reintroduce wolves into their natural habitat. 

Wolves had already been in Colorado when Proposition 114 was passed. In 2021, a few months after the measure, but well before the first reintroduction took place, Colorado reported that the first grey wolf pups were born in the state since the 1940s (the pack had migrated from Wyoming). In the winter of 2020/2021, the state also had its first confirmed killing of a livestock by a wolf since the 1940s, due to the pack that migrated from Wyoming.

The 2020 vote on reintroducing the wolves, in a presidential election year, was the closest statewide vote of the night. Other results from the night showed big partisan swings that made it clear Colorado was now a strong blue state-the presidential election went 55.40/41.90% in favor of President Biden and the senate race went 53.5/44.2 in favor of Democrat John Hickenlooper. 

But the wolf measure did not follow the general trends of partisanship. Instead, it followed geography. On the mostly rural Western Slope (population around 590,000), the only counties that had a majority of votes in favor of the wolves reintroduction were Pitkin, Summit, San Miguel, San Juan, and La Plata. This is in stark contrast to the presidential race where 15 counties went for Biden.  Further, across the 5 counties that voted for Biden and the wolves on the Western Slope, the wolves measure on average lost around 10 points of support compared to the President. There were no counties on the rural Eastern Plains (population around 160,000) that voted in favor of the wolves.

This degree of separation between urban and rural carried clear implications in this vote. The rural areas are where the wolves will be reintroduced. 

Colorado immediately set to work on how to devise a plan to reintroduce the wolves. It involved the recommendations of two groups-a stakeholder group (comprised of ranchers, outfitters, and others speaking for communities in Colorado affected) and a technical working group (composed of wildlife experts and professionals). Colorado state officials took rural concerns seriously when it came to reintroducing the wolves, not just relying on experts but also those in communities affected. Adam Gall, a member of the stakeholder group, gave high praise to Colorado’s work, saying that Colorado Parks and Wildlife had done their due diligence in gathering diverse opinions for the stakeholder group and was respectful when it came to hearing how the stakeholders wanted reintroduction to take place. 

On Dec. 18th, 2023, three years after voting for the measure, Colorado Parks and Wildlife released the first five wolves into Colorado on the Western Slope. Colorado then released five more wolves four days later, again on the Western Slope. The state plans to release ten to fifteen wolves each year for the next three to five years, having just released the second set in January 2025.

The wolves in Colorado raise major questions about the role of rural areas, and the burdens placed on them. As one rancher put it, “Colorado livestock producers are now carrying the burden for America’s interest in wolves.” Wolves however provide many benefits to ecosystems in rural areas. Reintroducing wolves, as an apex predator, means that local prey populations are likely to not reach overcapacity, allowing fauna to flourish, and will allow other species to return to areas. 

As we go into this new era of climate change, destruction from wildfires, efforts to conserve nature, and declining wildlife populations-it seems more and more likely that conservation efforts will involve urban areas voting to pass measures that will need to be enforced in rural ones. It seems crucial to follow in Colorado’s footsteps here. State’s must make sure that rural communities' voices are heard, since they are unlikely to hold as much sway at the ballot box; yet are likely to hold up the hard end of the bargain, such as living with wolves at the doorstep. 

California's wolf pack another target of misinformation

The New York Times published a story out today under the headline, "Wolves, and Misinformation About Them, Make a California Comeback."  The subhead is, "For the past 10 years, wolves have been steadily returning to the state after being wiped out a century ago. But not everyone is rolling out the welcome mat."  This caption for one of the photos caught my eye as perfect for the blog; it's a quote from a biologist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife:  

Wolves have been politicized because they are right in the middle of this divide between rural and urban.

Here's the story's lede, also featuring the same wolf biologist:   

Kent Laudon, a wolf biologist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, woke up one morning last year to a flurry of text messages from a rancher in the state’s northernmost county. He was asking about a post with wildly specific details spreading across Facebook that urged people to find a red truck that was transporting breeding wolves along Route 97 into Siskiyou County, Calif. Mr. Laudon was not surprised. This wasn’t the first post of its kind, and it wouldn’t be the last.

“Wolves make people crazy,” he said of these persistent rumors. “And for the record: No, we’re not importing wolves. That never happened.”

Wolves don’t need to be dropped off in California because they are returning on their own.

I guess misinformation is everywhere--and about every topic.  It's not only about a purportedly stolen election and how ivermectin helps cure COVID-19.  It's about wolves, too.  

You can find prior posts about wolves here, and prior posts about Siskiyou County here.  

New book talks boundary-to-boundary poverty in rural Oregon

Michelle Wilde Anderson's new book, The Fight to Save the Town, features the stories of three municipalities and one county, the latter local government entity being Josephine County, Oregon.  I've written about Josephine County in prior posts, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.  Now, I'm sharing just a short excerpt about "JoCo" from Anderson's book.  

As many locals say with both pride and shame, rural Josephine is a “rough and tumble” place. 

* * *  

So it was that Josephine managed a radical experiment in local government downsizing. In recent decades, budget cuts eliminated most local public functions other than law enforcement, then leveled law enforcement, too. For years, the county ran by principles of independence: if you want a library, volunteer to fundraise private dollars to support one. If you want to reduce break-ins, volunteer to patrol your streets at night. If you want emergency law enforcement, sign up to take your neighbors’ calls on your cell phone and dispatch with your own gun. 

The remaining local officials, however, still had to govern. The words “Man in the Arena” float around as the screensaver message on Josephine County Sheriff Dave Daniel’s desktop. He keeps it as a reminder of Teddy Roosevelt’s speech celebrating the man who is not just a critic, but “who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming.” The sheriff has to be like that—a man who fights from within government, trying to hold on to at least a “night-watchman state” as politics and funding tighten around him. “We’re driving an eighteen wheeler, and we’ve got ten wheels on right now, maybe nine,” Daniel said in 2016. 

Back then, Sheriff Daniel was bracing for even further cuts. The federal government had been sending special funding to Josephine and other “timber counties” in Oregon for more than twenty years, but those payments were sure to end. Federal funding dated back to an infamously polarizing environmental conflict: the battle over logging the old growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, where the endangered northern spotted owl nests in one of the world’s most complex ecosystems. Recompense for the lost local jobs and public revenues could not go on forever, but neither could Josephine easily replace federal dollars. A 1990s tax revolt in Oregon cinched Josephine in a legal straitjacket by locking local taxes into an unsustainably low rate and requiring voting majority approval of any increases. 

Given those tax laws, it wasn’t enough that Sheriff Daniel and other government officials believed that the cuts to services had gone too far. To do something about it, they had to build a grassroots movement in favor of new taxes in one of the most anti-government places in America. You can still make your own damn coffee, they argued, but a local government needs a few jail cells and some trained patrol officers to dispatch for 911 calls. It needs the kind of investigators who can coax witnesses and family members out of the shadows in cases like Caitlyn Strauser’s murder. Josephine has become a pioneer county once again. Its residents have been called upon to restore the public law enforcement that their Gold Rush forefathers built 150 years ago. Or to let it go. (pp. 84-85)

Not long after this passage, you learn about how the tax cuts in Josephine County caused a deputy based in Wolf Creek to have to move back to the county's urban core, and the deleterious impacts of that move on the well-being of Wolf Creek's residents. 

Agribusiness vs Bison in eastern Montana

That's the gist of this story in the New York Times yesterday.   Or you could say the gist is agribusiness vs. Native Americans.  The dateline is Wolf Point, Montana, population 2,621, 10,425, in the state's "high line" area, the northeastern part.  Wolf Point is the county seat of Roosevelt County (population 10,425) , but also--and highly significantly for purposes of this story--the largest population center on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, which encompasses 74% of the county's land area.  Here's an excerpt from Nate Schweber's story:

Sioux and Assiniboine tribe members wailed a welcome song last month at around 60 bison from Yellowstone National Park stormed onto a prairie pasture that had not let a bison's hoof for almost 140 years.   

That historic homecoming came just 11 days after 71 pureblood bison, descended from one of Montana's last wild herds, were released nearly onto untilled grassland owned by a charity with a vision of building a haven for prairie wildlife. 

*** 

"Populations of all native Montana wildlife have been allowed to rebound except bison; it's time to take care of them like they once took care of us," said Robert Magnan, 58, director of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation's Fish and Game Department, who will oversee the translated Yellowstone bison program

* * *

"I call them my brothers and sisters because they are a genetic link to the same ones my ancestors hunted," said Tote Gray Hawk, 54, a Sioux who has brought the Fort Peck bison hay and water each day since their arrival.  Their meat--lower in cholesterol than beef--will feed elderly tribe members and their skulls will be used in traditional sun dance ceremonies, he said.  

But not everyone agrees with Magnan, Gray Hawk, and others at Fort Peck.  Farmers, ranchers and other agribusiness interests worry that the herd will damage private property and compete for grass with their cattle.   Curt McCann, a 46-year-old Chinook rancher, is quoted:  "Bison are a romantic notion, but they don't belong today."  McCann had driven four hours to Jordan, Montana, to participate in a public meeting about the reintroduction of the bison.  "Bison is a big issue that could really impact our livelihood," said another man who ranches near Jordan.  Agribusiness is the state's biggest industry in Montana, where three million cattle are being raised but where no single bison roams free.

Northeastern Montana features a prairie expanse almost the size of Indiana.  This article investigates whether that expanse is large enough for both agribusiness and a few hundred (or thousand) bison.

It's Census Day: What does that mean for rural America?

Well, the New York Times features two stories that help to answer that question. One by Monica Davey features the dateline, Wolford, North Dakota (population 50), and the other, by Shaila Dewan, features the dateline Mayersville, Mississippi (population 795). Davey's story is headlined, "Few to Count, but All Eager to Get it Done," and she quotes the mayor of tiny Wolford as saying that the town's population has surely dropped in the past decade into the 40s. Davey apparently chose to feature Wolford in particular because it is one of a few towns in the U.S.--all of them in the midwest and all tiny--where every household has already returned its Census form. In spite of the material consequences of the Census count (the distribution of billions of dollars of federal funding is at stake), Davey suggests small town North Dakotans like those in Wolford are motivated by more than self interest:

Still, in this state of about 650,000 people (and no dream of somehow getting a second United States representative) and in towns like this one of just 50 (probably just 40-something by now, the mayor says), the extreme participation in the census may have less to do with a wishing for more federal money than with a certain sensibility.

“Why wouldn’t you send it right back?” asked Jim Wolf, who has been mayor here so long that he cannot recall what year he took office. “It’s a rural community,” said Mr. Wolf, who is also the volunteer fire squad chief, “and I guess we go by the rules.”

The story features several photos and characterizations that highlight aspects of small-town life, including lack of anonymity (everyone in town already knows who the oldest resident is, and who the youngest is). Some features of rural life relate to the high response rate to the Census. For example, Census officials have observed that residential stability is a good indicator of who will return their Census form. Most residents of Wolford grew up there. A University of North Dakota rural sociologist is quoted as noting the "high degree of trust in our elected officials."

Along with North Dakota, other states with high rates of return are South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska.

Dewan's story about rural Mississippi provides a nice contrast with Davey's tale from North Dakota. Indeed, it illustrates well the old adage, "If you've seen one rural place, you've seen one rural place." As in the rest of the Delta, poverty and illiteracy plague Issaquena County, population 2,274. So, apparently, does distrust of the government. Dewan writes:

People mistrust census takers for a variety of reasons, including a belief that the government is trying to catch them doing something illegal like misrepresenting the number of people in their household, which could affect benefits like food stamps, said Calvin Stewart, a Rolling Fork alderman, teacher, high school sports referee and spokesman for the town’s new antilitter campaign.

* * *

Issaquena County "contained some of the most challenging and undercounted census tracts in the state" in the 2000 Census, and as of today, the "target date to return census forms ... Issaquena was still lagging — only 21 percent of households had returned their forms, compared with 52 percent nationally, according to the running tally on the census Web site, although in many cases the forms have been hand-delivered to people’s homes by census workers.

The planned solution: a continuing public education effort to let residents know what is at stake ($400 billion, give or take a few), and a lot of door-to-door coverage by Census workers.

Shotgun stimulus: the economics of hunting

While the markets may be mulling over Black Friday returns for signs of life in the American consumer, a different sort of economic indicator makes its yearly debut today. Deer gun-hunting season opened up in Ohio this morning. Much like the first snow a ski resort, the opening week of deer season represents an influx of money into the region. Much of the money spent by hunters often ends up in rural business that may not get the benefit of other economic boosts, such as Christmas shopping rush or a federal stimulus package. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources expect about half a million hunters to spend just shy of $900 million dollars in the state during this hunting season. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that hunting as an activity generates about $76.6 billion dollars a year nationally, with a relatively high proportion of that spending going to small, rural businesses in the form of gas, supplies, food, and lodging. For instance, back in Ohio many small convenience stores in rural areas that get infrequent traffic during the remainder of the year double as sign-in stations for the hunters and benefit from their business after the hunt. The goal every year in Ohio is to attract as many out of state hunters as possible, because out-of-staters are more likely to patronize hotels and restaurants and out-of-state tags cost more for the hunter. In turn, the revenue from these tags are used by Ohio for biological conservation projects, protecting some of the very same land the hunters use every year. This process sounds suspiciously like how the multiplier effect is explained in the context of a broader economic stimulus.

However, if Black Friday returns were a little less robust than expected this year, Cross-hairs Monday could be even worse for rural Ohio. Wisconsin, whose deer gun season ended on Sunday the 29th, reported a 10% decrease in tag sales. A 10% decrease in tag sales equates to a much larger drop for the surrounding economy in reduced traffic and sales. Many hunters guessed that harsh weather had reduced the size of herd during the past winter, leading to less robust deer (which are less appealing to the hunter) and less deer overall. Weather is being blamed for slow hunting in Pennsylvania as well, but for its effects on the hunters themselves, not their quarry. Cold, rainy weather may be keeping hunters in bed, instead of outside and spending on tags, beer, and bags. Just like Black Friday sales, the rural hunting economy is tied to the quality of the product and the conditions of the day.

Hunting regulations are also an excellent example of local incentives at work. There is always a greater demand than supply for tags and permits, giving the wildlife departments great leeway and convenience in determining how best to manage their herds. For instance, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources reduced the price of antler-less deer tags this year. Shooting bucks does very little to control population, which the ODNR's stated goal for the hunt. Therefore, by redirecting hunters' attentions toward does, the ODNR hopes to increase the actual number of hunters while at the same time stabilizing the deer population in the state. In Wisconsin this year, the state Department of Natural Resources decided to kill two birds with one stone. With the issuance of a small game permit, hunters in the state were licensed to shoot at will at feral pigs, deemed a pest species that carry diseases which may affect livestock. Out West in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the debate centers around the appropriate number of tags and appropriate length of season to distribute for the recently un-endangered gray wolf. Some have speculated that, because anti-wolf sentiment runs so high among locals, the price of permits could be set extremely high and the permits would still sell out. One plan calls to set permit prices at a level to completely cover compensation costs to the farmers for livestock allegedly killed by wolves. Whatever else may be said about hunting, at a time when the whole country is undergoing a crash course in macroeconomics, the effects of and issues surrounding hunting in rural areas serve as a reminder that all economies, like politics, are truly local.

A sheriff on both sides of the law (Part II)

That's a headline I used once before, here. Now, a story in a Montana newspaper last week gives me a reason to roll it out again. A front-page story in the Great Falls Tribune reported on August 3, 2011, that the sheriff of Roosevelt County, "Freedom Crawford of Wolf Point, was charged with misdemeanor assault and obstructing a peace officer, along with two other offenses, following a fight at a downtown bar here early Tuesday morning. The altercation resulted in one man being transported to the emergency room with cuts to his face."

The report notes that one man was transported to the emergency room with cuts to his face following the fight. It also notes that Crawford and several of his deputies are in Lewistown, population 5,938 the county seat of Fergus County (population 11,218), for an evidentiary hearing related to Barry Beach's 1984 conviction for the beating death of Kim Nees of Poplar in 1979.

The Great Falls paper has been full of news about Beach's hearing this week. He has already served more than a quarter of a 100-year sentence in the Montana State Prison, but he has maintained his innocence for 27 years, arguing that the "confession that put him behind bars was coerced by aggressive investigators." Beach's lawyers are "trying to convince District Judge Wayne Phillips that he deserves a new trial based on the testimony of a string of witnesses who he says implicate a group of jealous girls in Nees' murder more than 30 years ago." A headline later in the week indicates that judge has called for written briefs in the matter before he will permit all of the new testimony being offered, having heard the testimony proferred by a 2008 district court petition by Beach.

Roosevelt County, population 10,231, is in far eastern Montana, on the state line with North Dakota. It's county seat is Wolf Point, population 2,533. Fergus County, on the other hand, is in central Montana, which suggests a change of venue for this evidentiary hearing, as Fergus and Roosevelt counties are not likely in the same judicial district.

So,what do we feel and think of America's last frontier?

Timothy Egan argues in a column in today's New York Times that the country isn't ready for at least one aspect of what Sarah Palin represents: our nation's last frontier, a place that evokes the America of yesteryear.

Here's an excerpt:

Among Alaskans, drunken driving, teenage pregnancy, shooting wildlife out of season and courting an independent political party whose founder once said, “the fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government,” are not disqualifying issues. They’re dinner-table stories.

* * *

But what many of us find, um, memorable, the rest of America may see as alarming, or at least strange. The CBS news survey on Tuesday, taking into account the Palin nomination, showed Obama with a 14-point lead among women. And a fresh Gallup poll suggests that the Palin pick has not helped McCain with Democratic or independent women, to date. It’s hurt.

Shooting wolves out of airplanes is something Palin backs with zest. But most Americans have never seen a wolf, let alone considered shooting one from a Piper Cub.

Egan lists a few other examples to make his point of how Palin and Alaska aren't like the "rest of us," and he concludes that, while Alaska may be what America used to be, "it may not be what America wants to be."

Certainly, we have become a nation that is primarily urban. By the 1920 census, more than half the country was living in metropolitan areas. By 1990, one half of the country was living in metropolitan areas with populations greater than 1 million. As our urban population has grown, so we have become increasingly urban-focused. Indeed, there is some rural discontent around the Presidential candidates' neglect of rural America (post-Iowa, of course).

Today, most of us encounter rurality through reality television and out our car windows as we drive to rural resorts. So Egan may be right. America may not be ready to embrace its frontier past, especially if it means putting a political greenhorn like Palin in the executive office. But I see plenty of evidence that the appeal of our rural, frontier past dies hard. Besides, whatever the current appeal of the rural myth in isolation, in Palin it is almost inextricably entangled with some other powerful, iconic, and appealing images: God, motherhood, and hard work.

"Rewilding" the Great Plains brings eco-tourism to North Dakota

A marvelous travel story in today's New York Times features North Dakota. No offense to North Dakotans, but the state is not one of the first that comes to mind for a domestic vacation.

It seems, however, that the depopulation of the Great Plains, which has not been so good for rural communities there, has brought some considerable ecological benefits to the state -- and with them, tourist dollars.

Here's a quote from the story by Joshua Kurlantzick.

Outdoors people, big landowners, travel operators and conservationists are now returning much of the Great Plains to its wild state, to a kind of American steppe. Conservationists are reviving native fauna and flora, and wolf populations are returning to the Yellowstone area. In the future, many hope, one giant fenceless region might be created across the entire plains that cover much of central North America east of the Rockies south to West Texas and New Mexico.

Appealing as this trend is at first blush, Kurlantzick's story reveals that it does create conflicts among rural/small town interests, agricultural interests, and environmental/conservationist interests. Perhaps those hoping to keep their towns alive will benefit economically from the eco-tourism; perhaps the trend will also create further incentives for them to be good stewards of the land.

On gun violence in rural America.

These past couple weeks three mass shootings devastated communities across California. On January 23, a gunman opened fire on a mushroom farm in Half Moon Bay. The elderly shooter murdered seven farmworkers, all of them Chinese or Mexican immigrants.

This came a few days after another mass shooting in Monterey Park. That day, an elderly gunman opened fire in a dance studio after a prominent Lunar New Year celebration. He killed eleven people, all of whom were AAPI.

Just five days before that, a mass shooting in the rural town of Goshen left six people dead, including a teenage mother and her infant. Police have linked the Central Valley shooting to the rural drug trade, but have yet to identify the perpetrator.

Gun violence weighs heavily on my mind. Less than a month into 2023, 40 mass shootings have occurred across the United States. Unfortunately, such a high number is as normal as it is tragic.

The proliferation of mass shootings has made me think about gun violence in rural America. The truth is that I do not know much about the topic. When I think of gun violence, my brain conjures images of "lone wolf" hate crimes, Chicago, and urban gang wars (thanks, Fox News).

Imagine my surprise when I found out that gun violence is actually worse in rural areas than cities. The Center for American Progress found that in 2020, the total gun death rate per capita for rural communities was 40 percent higher than it was for large metropolitan areas. On top of that, from 2016 to 2020, 13 out of the 20 U.S. counties with the most gun homicides per capita were rural.

The majority of these counties were in Southern and Midwestern states with strong gun rights politics such as Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina among others. These counties and states vote Republican and overwhelmingly oppose gun control.

It is no secret that Republicans tend to support greater gun access than Democrats. White Americans are also much less likely to view gun violence as a problem in America. This geographic phenomenon is well documented and easily discernible in today's politics.

These facts are similarly reflected across the urban-rural divide. Pew Research conducted a poll that found rural Americans significantly favor more expansive gun access while Americans in urban places prefer more restrictive policies. This is right in line with geographic gun ownership: 46% of rural Americans own a gun, as opposed to 28% of suburban Americans and 19% of urban Americans.

This begs the question: if gun violence disproportionately harms rural communities, why do rural areas continue to support gun-loving politicians?

First, I firmly believe that Republicans have successfully implemented propaganda campaigns to sway working class white Americans from voting for their own interests. This includes exacerbating racial tensions and overemphasizing America's "culture war." If you would like to read more, I have written about this previously.

One of the major consequences of this is a sort of media blackout about rural gun violence. Not only is there very little coverage of rural gun violence, the media often ignore guns as the main driver of the recent rise in violence. If major media, especially conservative platforms such as Fox News, fail to accurately and comprehensively cover mass shootings (or shootings that kill three or more people) in rural areas, then there are few ways that Americans can actually learn the true extent of rural gun violence.

Another reason rural areas may support stronger gun access is rural American culture. A fundamental aspect of rural culture is the American Dream-esque pride in "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps." Hard work, independence, and self-sufficiency are important parts of this and are highly valued in many areas of rural America.

This culture likely extends to guns. For example, 82% of rural gun owners say that owning a gun is essential to their own sense of personal freedom. Additionally, the most cited reason for owning a gun among rural Americans is protection, with hunting coming in a close second. Truly, what is more free or self-sufficient than protecting yourself or hunting for your own food?

Without a gun, some rural Americans might have to rely on the government for assistance and protection. This is not always reliable, especially considering the rural shortage of police officers. With the immediacy of emergencies and the hours it may take police to arrive to these remote areas, it is understandable that rural Americans may favor greater gun access to protect themselves.

The solution to reducing gun violence in rural areas, thus, cannot simply be a flat ban on guns. It is also understandable, then, why Republican fear mongering about Democrats taking rural Americans' guns is so effective. Democrats need to do a better job of including rural communities in gun control policymaking conversations (For example, remember Obama's "Bittergate" comments about how working class voters "get bitter" and "cling to their guns and religion."). Republicans need to acknowledge that something (anything) needs to be done about gun violence. In the end, we need to remember that we all should have the same goal of minimizing gun violence in all parts of the U.S.

NYT feature on the consequences of California redistricting on rural northstate

Kellen Browning reports for the New York Times under the headline, "They Wanted a Conservative State. They Might Get a Democratic Representative Instead."  The story is a richly textured look at how the residents of far northern California feel about the November passage of Proposition 50, which adopted new congressional districts that will temporarily override the decisions of the state's independent redistricting.  As I've written about previously here, here, here and here, this means residents of the current District 1, an inland district stretching from Butte County, about 80 miles north of Sacramento, all the way to the Oregon state line, are likely to be represented by a Democrat after the 2026 midterm elections.  This is because parts of current District 1 will be combined with a strip of coastal wine country stretching down into Marin County, just north of San Francisco.   The current 1st District is shown in lavender in the map below.  Much of it will be subsumed into a new 2d District, outlined by the dotted orange line. 

Source: We Draw the Lines California, California Legislature
Credits: Jeremia Kimelman, CalMatters

Excerpts from Browning's story follow.  Some highlight rural-urban difference and others highlight the feelings of rural voters in California' north state.  

For decades, residents in the rural north have longed for a political earthquake that would cleave their region out of California and allow them to create their own fabled “State of Jefferson” with conservatives in Southern Oregon. They have increasingly felt underappreciated and misunderstood by the liberal Democrats who run California and dominate the congressional delegation — who, in their telling, siphon away their water and prioritize environmental regulations that undercut farmers’ livelihoods.

Now, they not only lack a conservative State of Jefferson, but their entire region is also likely to lose its Republican congressman and have him replaced by a Democrat after next year’s midterm elections. 

“People in the cities don’t have a clue what it takes to survive out here,” said Terry Williams, a 75-year-old rice and walnut farmer who moved to Richvale in 1974. “I don’t think people that were born and raised in the cities can represent us to the same extent.”

Here's a quote from Gene Lifur, a 52-year-old from Orland, population 8,2998, which claims to be the "Queen Bee Capital" of North America for its role in raising the pollinators:  

There was definitely a feeling of throwing up your hands.  You’re going to lose a lot of the interest for voting in the North State.

Another resident, DaNell Millerburg, 62, who manages the Richvale Cafe, "said the idea of her small town being represented by someone from the Bay Area was 'scary.' ...'They want to save the opossums and the beavers and the snakes.  But it’s not good for the farmers, because those animals dig holes in their ditches.'"

Browning meet many of those he interviewed at the cafe, "a nonprofit kept afloat by locals, who wanted to ensure that the area’s solitary farmers had a place to meet."  Richvale, population 234, is the home of current District 1 Congressperson Doug LaMalfa who asserted, "I understand people here far better than a Bay Area interloper."

Rural residents, Mr. LaMalfa said, grew crops enjoyed by California’s cities but were scorned by those living in cities. He said that Democrats were passing expensive pollution regulations, tearing down crucial dams in the name of protecting salmon populations and introducing wolf packs that attacked their herds. Proposition 50 was the latest affront.

“Their voice is being silenced on how they feel about the issues here, because Newsom and the three-to-one ratio of Democrats wanted to see if they could steal five seats,” Mr. LaMalfa said of the governor and state lawmakers.

* * *

“I’m furious,” [LaMalfa] added, “because I’ve had my people kidnapped from me.”

* * *

The Democrats running against Mr. LaMalfa agreed that rural Californians have been neglected by many in their party. But they also argued that Republicans like Mr. LaMalfa have hurt farmers and agrarian communities with their policies.

Those Democrats include Mike McGuire of Geyserville, in Sonoma County, who until recently was president pro tem of the California Senate, and Audrey Denney, who grew up on a coastal cattle farm but has lived and worked for 20 years in Chico, a college town in the same county (Butte) as Richvale.  Denney has already run twice, unsuccessfully, against LaMalfa.  McGuire's California Senate district stretches from Sonoma County all the way to the Oregon state line, but hugs the coast, a more progressive region.  I have observed over the years that he takes the needs of his region's very rural reaches very seriously.  Read about that here and here.  Denney will presumably vie to represent the new 1st District, and McGuire will seek to represent the new 2d District.  

I'll close with this quote from another resident, Chris Culp, 62, a retired Navy officer, who Browning found at the Last Stand Bar and Grill:  

Somebody from Santa Rosa, Oakland, they’re not going to understand, and honestly I don’t think they’re going to take the time to get educated about what’s going on up here.  We’ve got different needs than the people in the dense cities and the coast.

Other posts highlighting the different needs of rural and urban California and long-standing agitation related to the would-be State of Jefferson are here.   

"Rural" attitudes toward the government shutdown

James Stewart for the the New York Times reports in today's business section under the headline, "In Rural Iowa, Spending, Not Shutdown, Raises Worry."  Stewart tells of time spent this week talking to voters in Iowa's Fourth Congressional District, which he describes as "a sprawling, mostly agricultural region that runs from Sioux City [population 82,684], on the Nebraska border, to Mason City, close to Minnesota."  It is an apparently notoriously conservative district, as evidenced by the fact its congressman is Steve King, a staunch critic of Obama and the Affordable Care Act.  Here's an excerpt from Stewart's story that helps explain why so many Iowans aren't troubled by the government shutdown: 

Iowa has been enjoying unusual prosperity in recent years, with low unemployment, high commodity prices and strong exports of agricultural products and machinery. “When your stomach is full and things are going well, it’s easy to say we have to get these guys under control,” said Stan Speer, president of American State Bank in Sioux Center [population 7,048]. “If we had another agricultural crisis like we had in the 1980s, it would be a whole different story.” He said that loan demand had been strong at his bank, but a continued shutdown would begin to affect construction projects that depend on federal programs. “With winter coming, any delay could have a big impact,” he said. “Then, people may start feeling differently.”

On the other hand, Stewart also reports on the effects for some who are feeling the effects of the government shutdown, and they happen to be in the more rural reaches of the state:

Even in rural Charles City [population 7,652], far from the paralysis in Washington, some people are feeling the effects. Timothy Fox, executive director of the Charles City Development Corporation, said he was troubled that his son’s trip to Effigy Mounds National Monument had been canceled. Government, he said, is “like electricity — you don’t notice it until you don’t have it.”

The NYTimes ran this story about 10 days ago, in the run up to the shutdown, featuring voter attitudes in Northwest Arkansas, which is also quite conservative.  (They have elected a Republican to Congress for some five decades, even as most of Arkansas has voted Democratic until recent elections).  Manny Fernandez's  story, "In Corner of Arkansas, Frustration but No Panic Over Possible Shutdown," dateline Bentonville, Arkansas, population 38,284, features mostly urban/metropolitan voters in the city best known as home to Wal-Mart's "home office."  Although the area is still popularly thought of as hillbilly territory (read more here and here), it is one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the United States.  Also in Benton County, however, are areas like Decatur, Gravette, and Siloam Springs, populations 1,699, 2,325, and 15,039 respectively. Here's a quote from Gravette resident, Johnny Alfrey, age 67, about the looming shutdown:

Wolf’s been called so much. I don’t think they’ll shut it down. But they won’t get anything solved, that’s what I think.

Later in the story comes this from and about Mr. Alfey and his friend, Robert Walker, 66: 

“People’s too worried about putting food on their table and gas in their tank,” Mr. Walker said of why people had not been concerned about a possible shutdown. Both men worked at the same factory before retiring. Mr. Alfrey considers himself a Republican and Mr. Walker an independent. 

“I was a die-hard Republican up to about 12 years ago, and now I’m for neither one of them,” said Mr. Walker, who lives in Siloam Springs. “Neither one of them agree on anything. It’s not Republicans against Democrats. It’s the government against the people.”

There you have it:  a little home-spun wisdom from rural (but metropolitan) Arkansas.

Meanwhile, this story tells of a few states' requests to the Dept. of the Interior to use state funding to keep national parks open--including Arizona's request regarding the Grand Canyon National Park and South Dakota's request regarding Mount Rushmore National Monument.  These national parks are symbols of their respective states and attract vast sums of tourism revenue, including to the states' rural reaches.  The DoI rebuffed both states' requests.  

Big feature in NYT Magazine on the Malheur occupation, two years on

Jennifer Piercy's feature in yesterday's New York Times Magazine appears under the headline, "Fear of the Government in the Ranchlands of Oregon."  This is a retrospective on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge seizure two years ago this month, but it reflects very current local views on federal land management.

Of great interest to me was the ranchers' sense of entitlement to the land, along with their penchant for conspiracy theories.  Piercy asks:

After only a few generations living here, what made them feel the land so completely belonged to them? 

Robin Olson [a member of Central Oregon Patriots, who lives in Powell Butte] told me that a lot of the region’s thinking about politics in the West originated from a publication called Range magazine. “What you will find,” she told me, “is that it was never about the sage grouse, never about the spotted owl and never about the wolf. It was about getting people off the land.” I asked Robin about the sage grouse, whose population had plummeted from 16 million to a few hundred thousand, and she told me, “I don’t think they are really endangered.” The sage grouse “just happened to live in almost every Western state” and that’s why “the government chose it.”

Also, here's a fabulous and fascinating quote by geographer Paul Starrs, from his essay “An Inescapable Range, or the Ranch as Everywhere.”

Ranching’s realm is really, then, definable as being where most people are absent.

This is one way of saying that ranching requires lots of territory, a fact detailed with this information about the ranch of Joe and Gay Cronin:

This was Cronin’s “home ranch,” where he housed his cattle in the winter and provided shelter for their newborns. In the spring, he gathered the cattle in trailers the size of semis and hauled them north, into the Malheur National Forest, where he owned 320 acres of land. He also had a permit that allowed him to graze his cattle for five and a half months of the year, usually June to October, on lands in the Malheur managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Every year he and Gay attended a required meeting to discuss the terms of their permit. Usually, the Forest Service decided how many cattle he could let out on the range and for how long. If an endangered species lived on the federal land, the terms of the permit were subject to change.

That excerpt also notes the procedure that ranchers who use any public lands are required to go through each year.  I found this detail about the ways the federal government engages ranchers to be very interesting and found myself wanting to know more about this interface--and what it is that the federal government does--other than protect endangered species and wildlife--that the ranchers find so annoying.  Or is that protection sufficient to drive the annoyance?  Well, here are the closing paragraphs of the story, with Piercy writing in the first person, which seems to answer that question:

I tried to suggest a lack of understanding between rural and urban people, but Robin stopped me. “No,” she said. “We just want different things.” The statement was cold and clear. It suggested the end of reconciliation. “We don’t want you breathing down our back,” she said. “Bottom line is we don’t trust you. We don’t trust you to look out for our best interests. And in truth we don’t even know that you know how to. A lot of people were saying this was about saving the bunnies and butterflies, but that’s not what this is about.”

Robin sat over her empty plate. “It’s about getting people off the land,” she said. “It’s dark.”