The grazing of neoliberalism

One of the characteristics of neoliberalism is the shifting of government roles, from regulating to de-regulating. In a LA Times article last week (found here), scientists speak out against a Bureau of Land Management Report on grazing's impact on public land, which led to President Bush "relaxing" regulations on the length of time in which animals may graze.

According to the National Wilflife Federation, grazing on federal lands by livestock uses more public land than any other commercial endeavor. Whereas President Clinton established policies within the BLM to safeguard the lands and repair damage done by over-grazing ("polluted watershed, ruined, despoiled riverbanks, damaged wildlife habitat, and destroyed archaeological sites"), the new regulations will "gut these reforms," reward livestock owners, and limit the public's role in decision-making.

The livestock industry is directly impacted by the efforts of various environmental justice groups. Lobbying efforts or campaign contributions by livestock groups, such as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, attempt to push back reforms, allowing them to maximize profits while ignoring a stewardship role. PACs for livestock groups provided a little under $700,000 in the 2004 election cycle, 79% went to the Republican party. Still, some argue that ranchers with herds that graze not only financially contribute to the maintenance of public land but also contribute labor toward upkeep. Today's Farmer reported on Jim Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, highlighting the benefits that ranchers contribute to the environment. These views are typically found in the Wise Use Movement, a counter-movement to the environmental movement that focuses on states' rights and industry firms (descriptions are found here, here, and here). In contrast, the Center for Biological Diversity presents a different picture on grazing. Here is the press release from the Center.