Beef: It's what for dinner, if you hate pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, willow flycatcher....

The Christian Science Monitor has this great story (Can America's West stay wild?) regarding the changing economy, demography, and environment of the west. What we're confused by is the title. Are they implying that the West is "wild" with livestock operations?

No matter. The rest of the story provides a straightforward and well-reasoned argument for removing livestock from the west's public lands. Too bad not all conservation groups think this clearly. Merely labeling something "Wilderness" doesn't protect it from some of the worst abuses.

Between 1970 and 2000, nonlabor jobs fueled 86 percent of this growth. Mining, timber, and agriculture (including ranching) contributed only 1 percent. Now, 93 percent of jobs in the West have no direct link to public lands, says Rasker. But wilderness areas, in conjunction with infrastructure like airports, correlated closely with areas that saw the greatest growth.

Which makes it that much more important that the habitat within the wilderness is as intact as possible, because the edge effects intensify.

Humans get a little meat at the expense of wolves, grizzlies, bison, birds, and trout – intact functioning ecosystems.

Is it really worth it?