NEWS & COMMENTARY

ALMA LIBRARY USING PETA’S CHICKEN COMIC TO GET KIDS INTERESTED IN LEARNING

There’s nothing that kids would rather read than comics, especially ones that feature lots of colorful illustrations and heartwarming stories with happy endings. That’s why People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is sending copies of its newly released comic book "A Chicken’s Life"—free of charge—to the Alma Public Library, which intends to hand out a copy of the comic book to each child visiting the library.
"A Chicken’s Life" demonstrates the basic concepts of compassion and respect for others, which are the pillars of character education. It focuses on the lives of three chickens who were rescued from the misery of modern factory farms—like the ones that dot Arkansas’ landscape—and a group of inquisitive and kind children who learn how they can help stop the suffering...

And the consumers respond in Billings, Montana

"Can I, like, go out there and eat my chicken in front of them?" asked Ryan Combs, a teen who eats at KFC a couple of times a week. He scoffed at the protest.
"It's just food. They're just chickens," he said...

Counterintuitive Energy Truths Election-time reality check

Like the deafening din of the cicadas every 17 years, each election season brings "energy-policy" proposals---wealth-redistribution schemes — to the front pages. We now have a congressional conference committee attempting to concoct a House/Senate compromise on yet another energy bill, justified as always on the basis of substantial analytic error and misguided conventional wisdom. That the same old nostrums every election cycle are promoted with other peoples' money should give pause, as public officials offer erroneous arguments, perhaps sincerely, while citizens are left to scratch their heads amid attempts to separate wrongheaded assertion from fact. Herewith, a few counterintuitive truths...

DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER

September 25, 2003
End All Grazing on Public Lands? - "Voluntary" Buyouts Are
First Step by Radical Environmental Groups Supporting Effort
Dear Colleague:
Recently, you received a Dear Colleague from Rep. Shays (Connecticut) and Rep. Grijalva (Arizona) asking you to consider signing on a bill to allow the voluntary retirement of grazing permits in Arizona. I urge you to very closely consider and do not cosponsor such a measure, for several reasons.
First, look at the groups backing this proposal. While I do not doubt that my Colleagues introducing this measure have forthright goals, you should be aware of the goals of some of the groups pushing these "voluntary" retirements. According to Greenwire and statements in other press sources, the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign (NPLGC) overall goal is to eliminate all cattle grazing on public lands. (Brian Stembeck, "Grazing: Enviros trying to end public lands grazing, ranchers say range improving." Greenwire, Feb. 8, 2002).
Second, these groups backing the legislation also have vigorous and well-funded legal teams that bankrupt ranchers while delaying and obstructing extensions of their grazing permits. So, if a rancher doesn't accept a "voluntary" buyout, they may become the unfortunate victim of lawsuits by well-funded groups targeting their grazing permits subject to renewal - potentially cutting off their ability to use these permits for years while the courts address the lawsuit against the BLM or Forest Service, to which they are only a bystander.
Third, many communities in the West are heavily dependent on ranches and public lands grazing, so eliminating grazing on public lands or similar steps toward that goal disproportionately impact the West. With all respect to my Colleagues, a bill that is the first step toward eliminating grazing on public lands championed by a member from the Northeast is a lot like me introducing a bill eliminating fishing in public waters off the New England coast.
Fourth, this proposal turns grazing policy on its head. The grazing permit is not a property right, and cannot be separately sold. Currently, if a rancher chooses not to seek to renew the permit, that permit is then offered to other interested ranchers for grazing, subject of course to NEPA and other requirements. Allowing a single rancher who may have suffered an unfortunate string of bad years and drought to dictate the future use of public lands forever is a radical change in our public lands policy - and an abdication of Congress' and agencies' responsibility to make public lands use decisions.
Like fresh water, blue skies and big mountains, cattle ranching is an unmistakably important part of our heritage throughout the West. But like so many other important pieces of our western heritage, this way of life has come under withering assault by narrow-minded interest groups devoted to nothing less than building a wall between the American people and their federal lands. Ignoring over 150-years of evidence, these well-funded interest groups argue, wrongly, that grazing has no place on our public lands because of the damage they claim it does to our natural environment. I ask you to reject their radical view, and beware the first step along the path toward their ultimate goal of forcing cattle grazing -- and therefore American cattle ranchers -- off of the public lands.
If you have any questions, please contact me or my Public Lands staffer, Melissa Simpson (#5-4761). I hope you will consider these points closely before making any decision to support legislation soon to be introduced by Reps. Shays (Connecticut) and Grijalva (Arizona).

Sincerely,

Scott McInnis

Member of Congress

P.S. - To offer some perspective about regional sensitivities, perhaps you should ask Representative Shays what his reaction would be to a Westerner introducing a bill with the ultimate goal of ending fishing in public waters off New England.