Sneaking a study about cutting beef consumption into the news? The technology might change but the humans don't. What do you think: should rurals shut down their land to urbans?
Sneaking a study about reducing beef consumption into a news article on water?
The last sentence of the abstract in the article linked first below:
"Long-term water security and river ecosystem health will ultimately require Americans to consume less beef that depends on irrigated feed crops."
This is from a paper by a gentleman who wrote a later paper which became the meat of Sun article with the headline "Cherish that hamburger. It cost a quarter of the Colorado River, according to researchers."
That Sun article is linked second below.
I don't doubt that Ag uses water. I don't doubt that fodder and animal use are significant. I also know that we have to eat something, and that there are those who would want to limit our use of natural resources for animal proteins.
I also know that the idea that replacing animal protein with plant protein--that if we do that the switch will have no consequences of its own--is at least a great simplification.
The issue to me is then the same one that I've written about before: when we have these conversations, who gets to join? Who gets the public microphone handed them by a journalist?
It is quite common that readers are presented with reports, articles, opinions ostensibly done by neutral** experts on a topic. It is also quite common that one side of the argument is presented, and information that readers could use to weigh the arguments and motives of these sources is left out.
Such is the case here.
What we have is a Sun article discussing a research paper that tells you that your consumption of meat is using up a huge amount of scarce water here in the West. A paper where the lead author has also led another paper saying that in order to save nature we will have to cut back on meat consumption.
And, that same lead author, who runs a group called Sustainable Waters (website linked third below), doesn't seem to want to discuss who is funding him: I wrote to ask, but got no response.
In addition to writing to the paper's lead author, I wrote to the reporter. I asked her whether or not she knew who was funding the lead author. I asked if the report came to her or if she sought it out. I asked if she knew of the lead author's other work.
I got the following back:
"The research was published in a peer-reviewed journal and a total of 12 authors contributed to the report. I vet my sources and did so with both this academic research and its authors. The Sun's article attempted to explain several novel findings in the research — including water use by crops, the environment, transmountain diversions, etc. — how they fit into Colorado River discussions and how they relate to Colorado."
I followed up with a question asking for specifics on her vetting (the same questions I originally put: do you know who funds him, are you aware of his previous work?). As of this writing I've not heard. If that changes, I'll update.
It's fine to add this group's work to the discussion. I'm not saying that their conclusions are prima facie wrong or that their perspective shouldn't be included.
At the same time, it is fair and reasonable to consider an author's previous work. It's fair and reasonable to ask who funds them. All these things help the reader understand and weigh what they're given.
Besides being unable to weigh what we're told, we all (reporters included) need to remember that nothing in either paper gives a complete picture. You'll note that there is no mention of the question: if we don't use it for meat, are we going to not use that portion of the Colorado River Water? Or, alternatively, if we put it to other use, what would that look like?
Having more people than just someone who advocates for lowering meat consumption as the sole way to save our river in the conversation might have fleshed this out better.
**The most common word I see in both articles and in email correspondence with reporters is "nonpartisan"--a neat semantic trick whereby we must be using the strict definition of the word and not a more commonly-understood definition of unbiased or disinterested. A quick check of these experts' bios and work clearly show them to be anything but neutral as in this case.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=wffdocs
https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/04/research-colorado-river-water-use-cherish-hamburger/
https://www.sustainablewaters.org/
Related:
From the same reporter as above, an article about alfalfa (again), albeit one that came much later than the first.
This one goes into the economics of the situation. We can talk all day about crops that use less water. Our governor can extol the benefits of growing hemp.
Without an actual market to sell these things in, it doesn't matter.
And again, the same maxim from above, for every choice a consequence.
https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/24/colorado-farmers-challenging-market-low-water-crops/
Open range: the technology might change but the humans don't.
One of the things I like about reading Rachel Gabel's writing is how often I learn something from it.
If you aren't yet, you should be reading her op eds and social media.
The one linked below is about a fight between a couple of people in Colorado over loose cattle. It's worth a read, particularly if you (like me) don't know much about raising cattle.
It struck me as a waste; I feel sorry for the young man who lost his cattle and his investment. I can't help but think that perhaps a better solution to the problem (other than shooting cows) could have been found here.
One of the interesting sidelights here is what it means to be an open range state (CO is one). I put a Wikipedia link below for you to read more if you'd like.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/cow-kill-encapsulates-clash-between-production-progress-gabel/article_1f1518aa-f90b-11ee-9146-975a6cabc687.html#:~:text=It's%20a%20stark%20reminder%20of,people%20can't%20be%20trusted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_range
What do you think: would it help or be counterproductive to have landowners closing their land on urban recreationists?
Let me start with a quote from the Gazette op ed below:
"Coloradans who leave the city to hunt, fish, hike, bike, climb, bird watch, camp, stargaze or enjoy countless other outdoor activities can thank rural property owners for voluntarily opening more than 2 million acres of Colorado for public use. The public use of private land is officially coordinated through the Private Land Program of the Colorado Parks & Wildlife service. 'Without private landowners’ support, modern-day Colorado’s remarkable wildlife abundance — and equally rich hunting and fishing opportunities — simply would not exist,' explains the state’s Private Land Program website."
Later on in the op ed, the Gazette's editorial board, rises to its conclusion:
"Rural property owners are within their rights to withdraw from participation in the Private Land Program and countless handshake agreements that allow public use of private land. No property owner has an obligation to provide recreation space and scenery to strangers. Rural Coloradans have embraced hospitality as a virtue for generations. They have generously allowed hunting, fishing, skiing, snowshoeing and other recreational activities on their properties — all out of kindness and tolerance. They have been thanked with apex predators and a slate of anti-energy, anti-agriculture legislation, rhetoric and sentiment that threatens their lifestyles, livelihoods and traditions. They have every reason to enforce boundaries and slam shut the gates when their urban neighbors come asking for favors."
That got me wondering. I don't mean about the (justified) feelings of rural Coloradans. I don't mean about the treatment by Front Range.
I mean about the wisdom and/or efficacy of retreating to neutral corners of the ring, and not interacting, about "punishing" urban voters by taking away things they enjoy about rural parts of the state.
I get the emotion and the pull to do so. Would it be helpful in the end, however?
I can kind of see both sides here.
You could take a tough love perspective and see it as a natural consequence of choices made, a consequence which could drive change.
You could see shutting gates as a missed opportunity to educate that would not have much real positive effect.
I honestly don't have any leaning on this right now. I also wouldn't judge the choices made by a landowner in either case. I suppose the only solid footing I have on it is to say that if someone did choose to withdraw from the Private Land Program, I would hope they wouldn't do it quietly.
I.e. if a landowner were to withdraw, he or she should make their reasoning quite perfectly clear to the Private Land Program and to those in the Front Range via a letter, a sign, both.
What do you think?