Public lands ranchers can wave "Stewards of the Land" banners and have their political representatives tout "local control" of public lands all they want. It has been largely unbridled local control over the past century that has brought us to the current sad condition of public and many private lands.

Yes, there are a few healthy stream reaches, watersheds and biologically diverse landscapes left in the West. Yet for each of these, there are 10 or more that are in ecological collapse.

Another tragic aspect of the control debate is the recent Farm Bill signed into law in May 2002 to the tune of $ 190 billion over 10 years. Even cattle ranchers dip into this trough for their production of beef. Add to this a $500 million annual subsidy to the ranching industry and you have the elements for a real shouting match.

A sector of our government is encouraging and shamelessly subsidizing the continuation of agricultural activities in the arid West that have a long and compelling history of rapacious and non-sustainable land-use practices. Meanwhile, agencies in the same sector are charged with reducing environmental impacts and substantially rehabilitating and compensating for decades of "local control" management abuse.

One consequence of this schizophrenia is the effective suspension of free-market dynamics in this sector of our national economy. The agencies, by statute, regulation and culture punctuated by liberal helpings of overt intervention by politicians, attempt to keep every "producer" in business. This nurtures a blind willingness to spend more taxpayers' money to support such operations than the resulting production is worth in the marketplace.

Duh! Why not divert some of this recurring expenditure stream into a one-time program to buy out or aid the transition to other lines of endeavor for the most marginal producers or those inflicting unacceptable injury to critical habitat?

It would seem that the nominal leaders of the various ag interest groups would realize the long-term insanity of the existing structure and the dwindling forbearance of the public for such privileged treatment. This is especially ominous when, at the same time, other Americans are being turned out on the streets without retirement benefits or severance payments. Where is the concern for the preservation of their lifestyle?

In the long-term, the most valued ag leaders will be those who make the inexorable transition occur with "graceful out" compensation for livestock operators unable or unwilling to continue in the business. We cruelly turned out the prior occupants and stewards of the land, our Native Americans, who had a record of sustainable use for hundreds of generations. Now we are faced with the transition of another group with a scant four to six generations of legitimacy, but with arguably less success in accomplishing their life goals in an environmentally benign way.

Under a voluntary federal grazing permit buyout program such as that proposed by the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign, all grazing permits (as opposed to "rights") on public lands could be purchased and retired for about $2.9 billion, with a savings of $5.5 billion to $9.9 billion. Even the $3.3 billion alone is one-seventh of the $20 billion, congressionally approved program to rehab the Everglades in Florida.

What would such a program do to the price of a hamburger? Not much! Public lands ranching in the 11 western states produces less than 3 percent of the nation's beef supply. Florida alone supplies more beef and with far more efficiency.

Obviously, land-use practices in the arid West are in transition and under unbelievable tension. The trump cards of lifestyle preservation for public-lands ranchers, the size and venerability of their gene pool and the need for their "continued" primacy in our western economy are fast becoming a tattered and worn-out sophistry.

Gene Bray is WWP's secretary-treasurer, and resides in Meridian, Idaho.