Dear HCN,
In the opinion of Frank
and Deborah Popper, their Buffalo Commons idea is accurate, but
your headline tells the real story: “The bison are coming’ – not
the “Commons’ (HCN, 2/2/98).
If the Poppers had
said 10 years ago that bison (note they still get the animals’ name
wrong) should become more numerous on the Great Plains, or even
should replace cattle, I doubt they would have drawn much
attention. It was the “commons’ idea that caused all the
controversy, because it said to the people of the Plains: You’ve
failed, you can’t make it without subsidies, and your land should
become public land for eco-tourism. For the Poppers to leave the
commons idea all but unmentioned now, while uncritically
congratulating themselves for anticipating the increase in bison
herds – that’s revision, not retrospect.
You
could point to any rural area in the United States and show where
farming has been subsidized and people have been leaving the land.
People of the Plains know this; no wonder the Poppers met
resistance for singling them out for criticism. Subsidized,
depopulated rural areas anywhere could just as well be proposed for
eco-tourists’ commons. For that matter, the next time a building
falls to earthquakes, mudslides or hurricanes
…
I know firsthand the problems of agriculture
and rural economies, but I say that to portray out-migration as
failure is shading the truth. My father is a typical farmer,
working hard to raise four kids who went on to off-farm work, even
professions. I’ve yet to hear the Poppers admit the truth of my
father’s life, and that of thousands of other Plains farmers:
successful, laudable, exemplary. No wonder they met
resistance.
It is inaccurate to say the Forest
Service “may allow” ranchers to graze bison on national grasslands
in the Great Plains. The Poppers may have said that out of
ignorance, or maybe because it suits them. If it’s the latter, I’m
calling their bluff: The agency already allows ranchers to graze
bison; a rancher in my Zip code does so now. Some grazing
associations prohibit using bison, but that is another
story.
What is new is that the Forest Service
will discuss bison as the agency revises its management plans for
the national grasslands of the northern Great Plains. (See
“Revision Reporter,” November 1997, from USFS, 125 N. Main St.,
Chadron, NE 69337.) But you’d have to be naive, wishfully thinking,
to assert that this means the agency will somehow “allow” or even
encourage bison grazing on public lands.
All in
all, the Poppers’ article mainly serves to lessen their
credibility. How else can we respond to a generalization like
“noticeable numbers’ of ranchers have switched to bison? Well, what
are the numbers? Show us the numbers, and let us decide if they
indicate a real trend. The Poppers say the market for bison is
strong, especially compared with cattle and sheep, but they left
unsaid the fact that the demand for breeding, not slaughtering,
bison is what keeps that market strong. Next time you publish such
an uncritical opinion piece, with so many half-truths, I hope you
will print a countering opinion right
alongside.
Michael
Melius
Hermosa, South
Dakota
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline The Poppers tell a biased story.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
