OCR Text |
Show ON THE THIS RECORD, First ih 4a: ISSUE: What is the future of Rural Utah, through of the professional environmental community? Editor's Note: For the last year, The Zephyr has been trying to ask some tough questions about the role we environmentalists are playing in the dramatically changing face of the Rural West. When, a few months ago, I saw outspoken Utah enviro Patrick Diehl’s very blunt letter circulating on the internet, I decided to find out just how Utah's environmental leaders viewed his comments. Here is what I sent them, and what follows are the responses from those who replied...]S TO: Susan Tixier, Forest Guardians; John Weisheit, Living Rivers; Larry Young, SUWA; Denise Boggs, Utah Environmental Congress; Wayne Hoskisson, Red Rock Forests; Ivan Weber, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter; Rich Ingebretsen, GCI; Ken Sleight About a year ago, The Zephyr published an issue called, “It’s Time to Look in the Mirror." It suggested that we environmentalists need to take a hard look at ourselves and our own contribution to the degradation of a land we all love very much. The issue, in particular, tried to make the point that urbanization of the rural West would cause dramatic changes to its environmental and social landscape—changes that many of us hadn’t anticipated just.a few years ago. The response from the Zephyr readership to that issue was surprisingly large and mostly sympathetic. We continue to receive comments and I think the discussion will and should continue. Now, in the last few months, a letter has circulated on the internet that, I believe, clearly defines the longterm vision of at least some members of the environmental - community, when it comes to the future of the Rural West. With the exception of Moab, south central and southeastern Utah is grossly underpopulated, to the point that services are so- minimal here that it is hard to builda new economy... We could use a few thousand people...moving in. Series the eyes in certain locales, but they are of marginal ecological value, and they are not going to add up to the fundamental change that is needed...Saving riparian areas by themselves only encourages land managers to make water developments on the uplands, which are then devastated by the displaced cattle." é Diehl’s conclusion: "Democracy is about disagreements, and about moving on (hopefully forward) Ls them...The dialogue/dialectic will continue through interchanges like this." With the imminent departure of our friend Mr. Hansen, it seems like a good time to set aside the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle and try to engage in some plain and honest speaking. Thanks again, in advance, and I look forward to hearing from all of you. Happy trails, Jim Stiles NOTE: We received comments from five of the seven who were invited to participate. SUSAN TIXIER, Forest Guardians A conversation that begins with talk about "economy" or money or salaries or jobs misses the point. When we let money become our basis and measure for success in any of our discussions or decisions, we lose sight of our real goal---the land (Stupid). It’s the land we hold in our mind’s eye as we write or read about public lands protection, not greenbacks or coins. We feel the clean, clear air, see the stars, imagine a mountain lion in the shadows on that ledge, "we" meaning any of us, including those who say it’s about jobs, and money, and money, and jobs. Patrick’s piece belies the reason that brought him, and many of us, to the southwest---it is "grossly underpopulated." I lived in Escalante, Garfield County, UT, and loved it. Now Poa Diehl Escalante, Utah The letter is from Patrick Diehl, a member of the Glen Canyon Group’s Executive Committee, to a member of the Utah Chapter’s ExCom (on my copy, the identity of that person was withheld.) Last summer the Glen Canyon Group voted fora resolution banning public lands grazing in seven southern Utah counties. In his letter Diehl unflinchingly states his belief that the Rural West, and particularly ranching, as we know it today must be severely altered, even obliterated, and replaced by what he calls, "The New Economy." While I don’t see eye-to-eye with Patrick on this subject, I think he clearly and concisely states his case. Now Id like to ask all of you for your comments. I want to initiate a semi-regular feature in The Zephyr called: "On the Record." It would address issues of importance to the Colorado Plateau and ask for comments from some of the people most involved in those issues. I’m asking all of you to be my first participants. I hope to print excerpts from Mr. Diehl’s letter (I'll include those excerpts in this email) and then I’d like to ask for comments from each of you, to the tune of about 300 to 500 words apiece. Do you agree with him? Do you disagree? What is YOUR vision for the rural West 25 years from now? I think the Zephyr readership would like to know where you stand. I live in Rincanada, Rio Arriba County, NM, and love it. These counties and the relatively few people who live there are, generally, poor. I moved from Boulder, CO, in the first instance, and froma "gated" community south of Santa Fe, in the second. The people in those places are not poor. There was infrastructure to die for, every kind of restaurant, theatre, "like-minded" people, mostly Democrats, mostly environmentally aware. But there is something lacking in Boulder and Santa Fe--- not money---and there is something very rich and attractive in Garfield and Rio Arriba Counties---not money. Boulder, CO, and Santa Fe, are both prospering in a "new economy.” More roads, less available water, bad-looking subdivisions with silly names, air/noise/light pollution, outnumbered and outspent locals all paid for by a "new economy” supported indeed by owners of the mega-homes on private (base) property, their friends, and their collective needs. Surely, Patrick doesn’t envision this as the answer to our future here in the Southwest. ‘ The we-hate-the-cowboys attitude also misses the point. It isn’t "us n’ them." It’s us, all us humans, and the land. Some of us live simply on the land; some are greedy, piggy, uncaring, mean-spirited people. Humans and all our agents, including cows, obviously threaten wild and not-so-wild public lands places. We could waste too many years deciding which humans better deserve to be using the land and for what purpose. The battle over these lands ought not be about uses; it should be about protections. It makes more sense to focus on the land, the land and what is required to maintain If you don’t want to express an opinion, that will be duly noted as well. But I truly believe this is a good time to speak honestly and from the heart. Please try to respond to ALL the points Dieh] makes-don’t pick and choose. As Patrick Diehl himself says, "Democracy is about disagreements and about moving on (hopefully forward) despite them...The dialogue/dialectic will continue through interchanges like this." I don’t want to take anyone out of context, and if you think I have edited Patrick’s letter in a way that misrepresents him, please let me know. Here is the excerpt: ' entire, healthy ecosystems. Protected wild public lands ought to be the basis for and measure of our success. Hating the cowboys (or anyone else) creates martyrs and embarrasses people into either ignoring a volatile issue or taking sides, enabling those who On the subject of rural population and the New Economy... the land is more annoying than offensive. Money is money. If we get into this money talk again, we're talking relative values. Do “they” deserve it? I don’t want to play God, "With the exception of Moab, south central and southeastern Utah is grossly underpopulated, to the point that services are so minimal here that it is hard to build a new economy, especially with the old unsustainable one in such rotten shape. We could use a few thousand people with outside labor or non-labor income moving in, both for their economic. and social value!" On the question of compensating public lands ranchers... "Events will show whether in fact ‘we will have to compensate (public lands) ranchers’ for losing something which they never really had, namely grazing ‘rights.’...Eventually in places where the new economy takes hold, this factor will not matter much. The monetary value of the base property will reach a level where the added value of a grazing allotment will not mean much if ees: In other words, where the new economy prospers, grazing will wither." don’t mind destroying nature to sneak around doing just that, while we piss and moan at each other. When the land is screwed up, or is about to be, use the laws on the books to fix it or stop it, regardless of what subgroup of humans are impacted. Change attitudes, change politics, and then change the laws to better protect even more ecosystems. Taxpayer or donated money to compensate ranchers for getting their stupid cows off determining whether your use or mine is more benign, or whether my intentions are better than yours. I just want the goddamned cows off our public lands! Whatever it takes, I say. Meanness, hate-mongering, fear-bating are inconsistent with gentle, respectful, humility most of us seek and feel when we're on the land. It is difficult to blame any person when wind blows sand into your soup, sleeping bags get wet, ankles fail, or sun blazes too hot for too long on the slickrock. But when I’m out there stomping around in the cowpoop, I am sick of all of us who don’t want to give up a little something to protect a whole lot of fabulous nothing out there. Get the science, get the facts, file the lawsuits—-and get the On the question of attacking “the last of the cowboys.” goddamned cows off the land. Forget the personal attacks. Thanks for this, Stiles, and Patrick. This spirited dialogue feels a lot like one of those worst days in the desert, one of those that I recall as Pee a most instructive, perversely satisfying experience. This is good. "We do not agree that ‘cowboys’ are politically invulnerable. Indeed, when they come under pressure, they behave very badly, with an utter disregard for the land that can only Susan alienate more and more of the public...We believe that what is needed is more (sic) and Tixier is former director of Great Old Broads for Wilderness and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. She now works with Forest Guardians. more pressure on them, so that people can see them for what they really are: members of an industry (not a religious order, with typically self-serving attitudes, and with outsized subsidies and devastating effects on American public lands.” On the idea of working more positively with family ranches to improve the range, protect riparian areas and on the Grand Canyon Trust's buyout of some public lands grazing leases: "Unfortunately, the reality is that the numerous family ranchers are also destroying the Western environment, and they are the footsoldiers and pawns of the big operators, who hide behind their image...GCT’s buyouts have made hiking pleasanter for wilderness buffs RICHARD INGEBRETSEN, Glen Canyon institute I read with great interest Patrick Diel’s comments on the "The New Economy" of the West. I learned from Patrick’s article. 1 must admit that this is an area that I lack an expertise, but I’d like to make some comments, particularly about the concept of "sustainablity." This is a most important concept in the environmental movement. In fact, sustainability was the original economy of our species. Pre-industrial people lived sustainably because they had to. And if they expanded their populations beyond the — |