OCR Text |
Show THE ZEPHYROCTOBER 1990 PAGE 22 from the sierra club Some Paradoxes of Preservation by Lance Christie In debating our peers In the Western Association of Land Users (WALU), It has become evident that they arent Uke those of us belonging to environmental groups, WALU members will agree that the long-ter- m Interests of people and the environment tend to correspond. To the extent we do things as people which degrade our environment, we are sulcldally stupid The debate, then, Is not about whether or not we should destroy our environment, but about whether various courses of action will destroy or protect our environment It Is also evident to me that WALU and the Sierra Club disagree mostly about land public preservation and management Issues, while disagreeing very little about toxics and pollution, population problems, and even a number of political Issues such as local tax policy. have also found we share a passion for the Idea of participatory democracy as the best and safest reservoir of power, absolutely necessary to the maintenance of a free society. And it Is a "free society that we mutually want Opinions differ from person to person as to what a "free society Is. I think we have learned that unrestrained Individual freedom and Industry Inflicts unacceptable costs on the people and the land - the more so the more of us there are. We In their haven't learned how to get all people to pursue long-ter- m enlightened In behavior and economic activities, and we disagree on what measures are our enlightened as a society and species. So, our culture has evolved Institutions by which Issues are deliberated, decisions made by determining the Judgment of the majority, policy the decisions codified Into policies, rules, and law, and then Interpreted and enforced. This system Is called "government, and these functions are performed by the legislative, Judicial, and executive branches. We end up with a paradox: a system which restrains freedoms In order to preserve and guarantee freedoms. Our political process searches for the balance point where we have the "greatest good for the greatest number. WALU-lt- es I have spoken with say "freedom Is the principal Issue In their BLM to public lands to the National Wilderness Preservation System. opposition adding This "freedom breaks down Into a "freedom to and a "freedom from. The "freedom to the ability of the Individual to pursue livelihood on and from the public lands. They seek freedom from the arbitrary tyranny of bureaucratic regulators. Environmental group members would, In general, agree that adding Utah BLM public lands (9.1, not all of It) to the National Wilderness Preservation System would enhance their experience of freedom. In this case, the "freedom to enjoy the clean air, water, unimpaired natural diversity, and beauty which wilderness designation preserves from We self-inter- est self-inter- est mechanical disruption. The "freedom from Is constantly fighting Inappropriate mechanical development schemes Invading pristine areas where natural values appear to far outweigh commodity values. Environmentalists experience wilderness as an amenity which Is getting Increasingly scarce and more valuable. Those who believe good stewardship Is a primary responsibility upon man favor wilderness preservation as an expression of good stewardship values. If nothing else, wilderness Is a reference point to areas affected by man, providing an opportunity "to Improve our Intelligence and keep us humble when we compare our efforts to those of unimpaired nature. Those who believe that the Idea of mans stewardship Is hubris favor preserving areas from the Impact of mankind's folly. When the 5.1 million acre BLM wilderness proposal Is discussed, opponents seem to think that adding this land to the wilderness system will break the economy - that those favoring tills 9.1 of Utah be designated wilderness dont understand where the raw materials they use come from, and would be without these goods If this small percentage of Utah lands were wilderness. The argument doesnt seem to apply to the Issue. First, those lands are wilderness or now, they wouldn't qualify for designation. Thus, we arent dependent on commodity production from them which wilderness designation would cut off. Second, commodity production potential for the 5.1 million acres Is poor compared to the 16.9 million acres of Utah BLM lands that are not proposed for wilderness protection. Third, If we do get In such desperate straits as a nation that minerals In wilderness areas are more valuable than natural values, the 1964 Wilderness Act gives the President the power to open units of the wilderness preservation system to exploration and production by decree In a "national It Is up to the President to define what a "national emergency. emergency Is; Congressional action Is not required. What the fuss Is really mostly about Is fear of the Bureau of Land Management use of Its regulatory authority. WALU members are full of stories about awful and (BLM)'s capricious things BLM has allegedly done to various land users. They fear that wilderness designation confers on BLM vast new authority to make land users lives more miserable. Environmentalists can sympathize with this point of view. Bluntly, the prospect of the federal government managing anything sends very few of us Into rapture. What cracks us up Is WALU- - ties claiming that BLM Is a pawn to environmental group Interests. Actually, we more often experience BLM as a pawn of commodity Interests. Our pet name for the agency Is "The Bureau of Livestock and Mining. Since the 1988 and 1989 Government Accounting Office (GAO) studies of the BLM found the BLM to be In the sway of cattle and mining Interests, neglecting their Job as Congress defined It, we environmentalists tael our perceptions may be closer to reality than WALUs. This leads us to another paradox: environmentalists are willing to see 5.1 million acres of Utah BLM lands added to the Wilderness Preservation System and administered by BLM, while WALU dreads tills prospect; yet the GAO reports the BLM Is more responsive to the Interests of WALU's membership than to the environmentalists'. One key to the paradox lies In environmentalists' understanding that BLM already administers the land In question, and that wilderness designation actually doesnt change much you can do anything In a wilderness area you can do anywhere else, except file a BLM mining claim or do what you do with a mechanical conveyance (except a wheelchair). management of wilderness areas Is done through the same Regional Management Plan process as management of all other classifications of public land, with the same public hearing, Input, and appeal rights. Both environmental groups and WALU have a distaste for and distrust of government land management bureaucracies. This Is because bureaucracies are an artificial social form with a life and Imperative of their own. Bureaucracies are not a democratic Institutional form. They are a hierarchical authoritarian form. They operate according to an Internal logical system which Is bewildering to common sense and which responds only to arguments framed within the terms and premises of the bureaucracys loglcallegal system. Bureaucracies tend to respond with disdain to expressions of feeling. They appear alien, cold, unpredictable, and confusing to people who have not mastered the altered state of consciousness and special language of bureaucratese. As a group, environmental activists are highly educated and have mastered "bureaucratese (they vary In how much tt makes them want to throw up). We have some confidence In our ability to keep federal land management bureaucracies from neglecting land and public values because we know how to frame our comments, objections, and appeals In terms the bureaucracy cannot dismiss without subjecting Itself to successful appeal or lawsuit The WALU members I've spoken to rarely display these skills, and say they feel frustrated when confronting federal bureaucracies. Understanding the tendency of land management bureaucracies (and human nature In general) to pursue courses, Congress has passed a number of laws requiring agencies to hold public hearings and respond to public Input BLM Is struggling to catch on to howto actually do this. WALU and the Sierra Club agree that concerned citizens need to get Involved In this pro cess, seeing Its Intended effect Is realized. We are mutually offended when a federal land management agency Isnt honest about public Involvement making a decision without review and then defending tt against an Incensed publics valid criticisms. (Id like to note here that the staff of federal bureaucracies are with land and of Interests concerned the the public, and have problems with usually quite their agencys policies when they dont serve these Interests. Une staff welcome and need public Input criticizing bad agency policy so they can get tt overturned.) Second, we see wilderness disappearing on a continuing basis, e.g., the 5.1 million acres of BLM lands (satiny remnant of the roadless area Bob Marshall surveyed In 1936 and which was pursued as an "Escalante National Park before World War II derailed the proposal. We think tt Is Important, a moral tiling, to arrest this process. We dont have a realistic alternative to having the acreage added to the Wilderness Preservation System with BLM managing tt. Personally, I dont think the Wilderness Act model fits the preservation needs and circumstances of the Colorado Plateau physiographic province very well. Id rather be working on a "Colorado Plateau Physiographic Preserve, analogous to the Plnelands Preserve In New Jersey, which takes Into consideration the whole ecosystem relative to human habitation and enterprise. But Congress ordered BLM to do an Inventory of lands which qualify for the Wilderness Preservation System as defined by the 1964 Act when they passed the Federal Land Planning and Management Act In 1976. That set the ball In motion. I didnt do It, honest We have learned from other states that roadless lands not protected as wilderness end up with a mandate for development, whether tt makes economic sense or not So, were plugging away for wilderness designation because tt Is the best available alternative, not because tt Is a problem-fre- e, Ideal one for addressing the needs of the people and the land. The situation reminds me of Winston Churchill's remark about democracy: "It Is the worst possible form of government, except for all the rest Adding Utah BLM lands to the wilderness preservation system and having BLM "manage" them Is the worst possible way of pursuing environmental protection, except for the alternatives. self-servi- ng und Lance Cristie Is Chairman off the Canyonlands Group, Utah Chapter, of the Sierra Club, and Is Secretary of the Board of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. For Information, can 5, Lance at 5. or Jack Campbell at 259-509- M SUPERIOR ENERGY SYSTEMS ROBERT SOLDAT 259-511- PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER GENERATING EQUIPMENT Professional Design Work And Sales Code Installations For Remote Homes RVs Communications Outdoor Lighting Water Pumping Refrigeration CATALOG AND DESIGN GUIDE, 100 PAGES $3 CVSR 2510 Moab, Utah 84532 (801)259-763- 8 00 |