OCR Text |
Show Looking at ‘Enyaw" in the Mirror from—they will have the same impact in Utah. im, Thanks for the April Zephyr issue. It is one of the few issues I ever sat down and read from cover to cover. People of all faiths, foot, pedal or gas pedal all cause damage. I have done some of my own over the years. 1 am not sure what the solution is. We cannot hide the Utah from the world any longer. But I am also certain that we will need protection and that wilderness is the best legal tool we have to create protection. National Parks and Monuments provide protection but the rules are even more restrictive than wilderness. I have looked in the mirror and Enyaw on the other side said he hopes you burn in hell. Which is one of the nicest things he says about anyone. Wayne Y. Hoskisson Moab, Utah Letting Wilderness be Wilderness.. Hi JimHere’s a thought, for what it’s worth... I had been re-reading "A Sand County Almanac" when the last Zephyr came out. And toward the end, one quote stuck in my head: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of a biotic community. It is wrong when it tends with wilderness lie in the difference between "having" and “being”. We enviros (myself included) want to have it by mapping it, hiking it, biking it, rafting it--conquering its obstacles in droves. When will it be enough just to let a wilderness be a wilderness, without us? I’m not saying that those activities are inherently harmful, but the sheer number and scale of our participation makes it unsustainable. Thanks for your willingness to say what others only think. You Cannot Turn Back the Clock... Jim Stiles, I picked up the Zepher on my last iy in Moab. You have a great paper. Your dedication to your beliefs, your courage to state them and hard work is evident in the Zepher’s coverage. You are direct in your statements so I feel I can respond in kind. I found it interesting that you appeared shocked upon discovering a very basic truth lands run by government bureaucracies for the public have changed the “culture"of your personal environment. By changing the land ownership from private to public, we forced tradeoffs that have both beneficial and negative impacts. As a conservative, who practices conservation, I have turned off from the environmentalists’ - whining who never appear to accept the truism that there are major tradeoffs to any decision to take lands from private ownership and make them public. In fact, there are always tradeoffs to any political decision or action. It is utter folly not to look at probable tradeoffs before forcing a political solution. In 1986, the biologist Garrett Hardin coined one of the truest phrases about the environment, "the tragedy of the commons". It means the common ownership of land or " any resource invites exploitation and abuse. The opening of "secret places" on public by those disputable guidebooks is just typical thinking of environmental elitism. anointed those people, who believe that they solely have a right to public lands? should they be the only privileged ones to enjoy the beauty of a public place? Yes, used by many people, will be changed forever. That decision government purchased it, some by force, and made it public. population. Many farms and ranches are disappearing due to economics was made when lands Who Why land, the There is no turning back. Communities will grow or deteriorate based on many decisions and basic economic truths. Moab is expanding and your life style and community will change "beyond your recognition". Of course yuppies will move in from California and will pressure government to take more land using other people’s money for their environmental enjoyment. They were successful in California, as they will be in Utah. Their growth-just too many people. Their dislike for free markets and capitalism almost always comes through and like you, who are successful, write that you feel guilty engaging in this very competitive fray--you make excuses for your own success. Also, some assumptions expressed are just wrong. First, our native population is not expanding. Many studies even show it shrinking. Almost all of our population growth is due to immigration. We can stop growth simply by stopping immigration. Of course there are many tradeoffs to that decision. Second, the market responds to demand at a price that covers cost. Corporate interests react to demand cause by many factors including government decisions on restricted land use or free use. They follow demand and usually don’t create it. Corporate interests and the "rich", who drive "corporate interests”, contribute most of the taxes that are used to purchase the land we all freely use. Also, corporate interests contribute heavily to many environmental groups. My reaction is that the hatred for "corporate interests" and capitalism by environmentalists is like biting the hand that feeds you and attacks the effect not the cause. footprints, many footprints, but little else. I agree with you that environmentalists can be their own worse enemy. But the main basis for the changes you find so disturbing are probably caused by our great economy that has created widely distributed wealth and new technology, which allows people to work even in your coveted "wildlands". lam impressed that you are reviewing past decisions and are doing some sole searching. We all need to do that. I suggest rather than assigning blame or wallowing in guilt that we try to find real solutions and understand tradeoffs and compromise. We all need, however, to realize that there is really no going back. - In the long run, if you don’t like what is happening, you can always move to North Dakota. If that is not your decision, then work together with all affected groups to make your community better for all recognizing that past decisions and changes control are making our past lives a memory. Again, thank you for a great paper. not in our Gene Kasper Annandale, Minnesota Ode to Moab: A Eulogy Dear Jim: You can count me out. I won’t be moving to Moab. In fact, I don’t even like to visit there anymore. This is my farewell to the place I fell in love with more than thirty years ago. She was lovely then. I’ve held her in my heart all these years. I should have acted more decisively then, but waited too long—fantasizing about someday moving there, when the time was right--now its too late and I lament that unconsummated love. She has morphed into something else, undesirable, almost unrecognizable. The sweet thing that caught my eye and held my attention for so many years now resembles a gaudy whore. Sure, I saw it coming at least a decade ago, but was in denial for much of that time. My visits became less frequent and less satisfying. This last one a few weeks ago finally drove it home—my dreams and fantasies about Moab and the surrounding canyon country have decisions in California have had major negative impacts, that they now want to escape Continued on next page... SURREAL NAVAJO RUGS GLEN CANYON INSTITUTE P.O. Box 1925 Flagstaff, AZ 86002 520.556.9311 www.glencanyon.org Now on the web site: CITIZENS’ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Report on Initial Studies HELP US RESTORE A MASTERPIECE and I spent a few days in your beautiful state. 1 was impressed with the people, mainly young adults, who showed great respect for the parks. My wife and I walked many of the very popular trails and found no trash or garbage of any kind. Of course there are Andrea Jaussi Flagstaff, Arizona that public for their Again, this growth is partially a tradeoff due to government owning most of Utah which forces land prices up beyond what is affordable to most of us. Why should’t people move to Moab as they get virtually free use of million of acres for their enjoyment paid for by other people’s money and efforts? Diametrically, when I arrived home in Minnesota, the front page of our newspaper had an article on North Dakota where most of that state is losing simple enough, doesn’t it? I think our problems oe government actions. In North Dakota, they want more people and resist the land going back from wheat to prairie where only buffalo can be raised. Environmentalists blame the changes on corporate interests or the phantom population For those of you as slow as I am, “Enyaw" is “Wayne” backwards...JS otherwise.” It seems z They don’t accept the fact of tradeoffs nor do they accept political decisions. They can always blame "powerful interests" or "corporate interests” or just people. They believe they are anointed, as they are environmentalists fighting all those interests. Their dogmatic doctrine to increase regulation and government control, slow down technology, redirect scientific thinking, etc. is popular but too shallow. You also find change (growth) undesirable and, frankly, whine about it. COW CANYON TRADING POST GLEN CANYON med Lat ee the way it could be again. Bluff, Utah 84512 435.672.2208 cowcanyn@sanjuan.nct |