An actual headline from our paper this week: “Senate majority could rest on the sage grouse”.
Upon further reading, I learned that under debate is whether the sage grouse (a chicken-like bird) should be placed on the federal endangered species list or whether there should be local efforts to protect it. This is a hotly-contested issue in Montana and Colorado, where Senate elections are looming, and it’s no surprise that Republicans and Democrats have opposite views on what the solution should be.
If you peel back the onion a bit further, it becomes more clear that the real concern is not the bird itself, but its habitat, which spans 165 million acres — land that can also be used for energy exploration, hunting and housing developments. Should there be federal prohibition — meaning actual preservation of the land — or should there be local control which allows flexibility in interpretation of “efforts to protect”.
The author of the article predicts that the philosophical hot button of national vs. local control will define who voters choose in the next election — which could shift who controls the Senate. Thus the headline.
But it is far more complex and interrelated than federal vs. local or environmental issues vs. economic ones or whether the bird should be endangered or not. I fear that this is going to become one of those frenzy issues where you have to take sides, instead of having a conversation.
The next time you find yourself in a situation where the premise is equivalent to the fate of Congress resting on an obscure bird, stop and cry “foul”. You owe it to yourself to understand more of the layers and competing interests that are at play. Don’t put all your opinions in one basket until you learn more.
leadershipdots.blogspot.com
leadershipdots@gmail.com
Source: Senate majority could rest on the sage grouse by Nicholas Riccardi for The Associated Press in the Telegraph Herald, July 6, 2014, p. 3A
