By Candace Oathout
November 1, 2005
I recently received a copy of an article that was published in the Sierra Club's Orange County Conservation Newsletter. The author, Jim Stiles, presents, he says, an interest in a dialogue about the failure of the current system of competing interests about environmental issues. He says he is terminally sick of the hypocrisy coming from all sides of environmental issues. I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, buried in the article is a truly horrifying concept:
"The amenities economy (recreational activities) is just another extractive industry, and should be regarded as such by environmentalists."
The idea that any use of wilderness and wildlands is extractive, and therefore harmful, is just plain wrong. From earliest history, man has been a steward of the land. Sometimes, he has been a wise steward, and sometimes he has been extremely destructive. Those who are extremely destructive usually don't remain in place very long. Even an impact, such as iron mining in the North Country of Minnesota, can and does return to great beauty, with a diverse mixture of plant and animal life, in a relatively short period of time. The Cuyuna Iron Mines were active open pit mines, until about twenty-five years ago. Since active mining has ceased, the pits have filled with crystal clear water. Vegetation has returned, and fish and animals are abundant. I daresay, the average tourist would not immediately realize that this area was ever bare ground and open pits.
I am an "old Westerner," however, I value wilderness. I want to be able to enjoy the majesty of the forests, mountains, deserts, and vast open spaces. There are many ways to conserve wildlands, without the onerous and artificial "Wilderness" designation. The concept written into Wilderness legislation is false. It assumes that any human impact is detrimental. It curtails our ability to manage and conserve forests in healthy conditions. I am constantly amazed at the apparent lack of understanding of the impact of Wilderness designations on forests. I, as a conservationist cannot, in any way, subscribe to the totally hands-off management methods that have led to such devastation of our forest landscapes through overgrowth, disease, pest infestation, and high intensity fires.
It is frustrating to many of us "old Westerners" that we are never given any credit for an ability to learn from the past, and change some of our methods of operation. Blanket condemnation of all grazing activities is just one example. Currently reported research has shown that the activity of ungulates, domestic or wild, is beneficial in helping to prevent the buildup of flash fuels on the forests and rangelands. According to this research, cattle tend to self-select non-native grasses and forbs, as they are often more tender and tasty. Most ranchers are very aware of the impact of their stock on forests and rangeland. They have to be, or they can't stay in business very long. They are willing to incorporate newer methods of stock rotation, but they refuse to be limited to the point where they can no longer make a living wage.
As a conservationist and an "old Westerner," I get extremely frustrated by the ideology that says that any use of forests and wildlands is extractive, and therefore harmful. Forests are renewable.
According to the National Report on Sustainable Forests 2003:
"...for the last 100 years, the total U.S. forest area has been relatively stable, while the U.S. population has more than doubled. Currently, total removals of wood products are 76 percent of net growth in the East, and 45 percent of growth in the West. In other words, we are gaining forested land, not losing it. Surely we, as a society, have learned enough in the last 150 years to harvest forests without decimating them. In the Southeastern states, lands that were completely clear cut in the early 1900s have returned to beautifully diverse forests, that are managed to provide mixed stands of growth that have been proven to benefit a large diversity of species."
As a conservationist and an "old Westerner," I have a very hard time with the Disney-fication of wildlife. I think that cougars, for example, are magnificent animals, but I don't necessarily want one in my backyard. They are predators, and are dangerous. It is no longer a matter of humans moving into empty public lands, it is a matter of cougars expanding their territories into the suburbs of the San Francisco Bay Area Peninsula, San Diego County, and Boulder, Colorado. I currently live in a suburb of Minneapolis, and have recently had confirmed reports of a cougar in my neighborhood. A few years ago, when I lived in Salt Lake City, Utah, there were confirmed sightings of cougars in the trees along a popular trail, and in a garage in a suburb on the Valley floor, miles from the forest. The cat had apparently followed a creek into town
As conservationists and "old Westerners," my friends and I don't particularly like seismic exploration work; however, we view it as necessary to support the lifestyle both old and new Westerners desire. I, for one, tend to appreciate the increased cost of fuels as it increases the interest of reasonable people in conserving fuels. We pay much more attention to a problem when it hits our pocketbooks; however, there are many newer technologies that can recover fuels effectively, with a much smaller footprint on the landscape. Again, although the initial drilling and construction can definitely be an eyesore, most construction contracts issued these days, include restoration of the site when construction is completed. In just a few years, the construction disruption disappears, and vegetation and animal life abounds.
The major disconnect between "old Westerners and new Westerners," in my mind, is the premise that any human activity on wildlands is wrong. The extreme ideology that seeks to remove watering sources in the Mohave Desert, that have been in place for 150 years, because they are man made, is just wrong. Generations of desert species have become accustomed to them. Their removal is a death sentence. We "old Westerners" take issue with the wanton destruction of animals in order to satisfy the extreme definition of "pristine Wilderness."
I would very much like to see reasonable dialogs that recognize that not all changes to wildland landscapes are necessarily bad, that "old Westerners" can learn new tricks, that use of forests and wildlands does not necessarily destroy them. I have a hard time reconciling "new Westerner's" hatred of domestic livestock, with the concept that we need to restore vast herds of bison to the plains. I have a hard time reconciling the constant demands to save the last wild lands, with the fact that there are now over 106 million acres of designated wilderness in the United States. This equates to a land area the size of California and South Dakota combined. I would love to engage in a dialog that recognizes a balanced use of our abundant natural resources, while showing respect for, and good stewardship of them. We need to recognize and mitigate our impacts, but we also need to experience and enjoy them.