Roadless Rules Upheld

A panel of the Tenth Circuit has upheld (unanimously) the Forest Service's Clinton era roadless rule against a challenge by the state of Wyoming. The decision is here (but be warned that it is 120 pages long). This is a pretty big deal and a big win for conservationists, environmentalists, outdoors enthusiasts, and pretty much anyone who doesn't want to see small roads turn into bigger ones turn into major logging/mining/drilling projects turn into "well, it's already so developed what is the problem with going a little further" slippery slopes. It is also likely to severely limit, in theory if not in practice because many ORV users regularly flout restrictions, damage from off-road vehicles, snow mobiles, and 4x4s. If you would like a more digestible summary of the case you can read it in the NYT though it is only a shadow of the bigger issue.

More Constructions

Not a long post, just a quick follow up on my last post about nature as a social construction. The September issue of National Geographic had a nice piece on New York's Adirondack Park that provides a perfect example of this. With Verlyn Klinkenborg's focus on the park's history and the ways it has grown and healed the landscape while continuing to provide space for myriad uses makes the piece a wonderful focal point for further thought on ideas of nature and wilderness (read through it and the photo captions and maps and think about how and why those words are used). It doesn't hurt that it is accompanied by National Geographic's traditionally excellent photography either.

Ideas of Nature and Social Construction

This is a topic I've been meaning to write on for quite a while and have touched on in the context of other issues repeatedly, but the time has finally come to give it direct attention. I have been fascinated for a long time by changes in conceptions of nature, what is natural, what it means to be wild, and from what source such places and concepts derive their meaning and importance (for their own sake, for the value of goods/services they can sustainably provide to humans, for the value of onetime goods/services they can provide, for their aesthetic value (and it's interesting to see how those ideas change), for their scientific value, etc.). While there is a rich and growing literature in what has come to be called environmental studies (with contributions from engineers and architects/urban planners, biologists, geologists, historians, economists, sociologists, artists, literary critics, philosophers, and theologians), a small blog is hardly the place to even pretend to summarize the field (though if you want a good place to start Donald Worster, William Cronon, and Richard White represent three distinct schools of thought and are leading thinkers in the field, at least among environmental historians).

Now that I've made the task seem overwhelming, it's time to get to actually writing. I'm a bit disappointed that right when I get ready to write on this topic the NYT goes and steals my thunder publishing a thoughtful Op-Ed by Michael Lipsky on regulation and wilderness. While his broader point is that there is nowhere in the nation, even in seemingly remote places that the reassurances of law do not comfort and the protections of regulation do not reach, he also rightly notes that the very idea of Wilderness has been codified in America, defined and protected as a place, to quote the Wilderness Act, "where man himself is a visitor who does not remain" that is free of trails, permanent structures, and motors of any kind. He also paraphrases Roderick Nash's observation that wilderness is based on state of mind. This, too, is true. While federally designated (and therefore protected) wilderness has been strictly defined and given a specific set of social values, there are many other "wild" places one may encounter nature as well as ones that are not nearly as natural as they may seem.

A place of the first type can be found in my hometown (indeed my old neighborhood) of Philadelphia. There, a landscape designer has decided to let her yard "go wild," and has been cited by the city for its seemingly weedy and unkempt appearance. Clearly this is a case of social norms as to what constitutes an acceptable yard is coming up against though an alternative thinker. The benefits of a non-monoculture, unfertilized yard that attracts pollinators are clearly high, but they definitely do not mesh with the standard vision of an urban home. (This is not the most egregious case, however, that goes to Oak Park, MI, where a city planner threatened a homeowner using twisted logic for having a vegetable garden in her yard. Fortunately Julie Bass prevailed over the urban planing department). While no one will ever mistake a yard or even a city park for a wilderness, how we think about them is quite revealing of how we view nature and its role in human life and the boundary between them (if there is one). (Another very interesting project that plays on this boundary is NYC's High Line, which I highly recommend walking in its entirety should you get the chance). City parks and how they are designed is also fascinating and revealing, but that is a matter for another post.

Finally we have purportedly wild places that aren't nearly as natural as they would seem. I take as my example in this case Yosemite National Park. One of the Park Service's crown jewels, featuring giant sequoias, stunning views, easy access from the Bay Area (and the attendant crush of people) it is a truly beautiful place. It is also highly managed and while less Disneyfied than it used to be (the 1 hour photo is gone and I think the golf course is as well), it is still largely dominated by roads, parking lots, and paved trails to the best vistas. But that is not what I want to discuss (it's a bit too obvious). What caught my eye for inclusion in this post was an article at the end of July about how the NPS is managing the trees and meadows in the park with the aim of optimizing and restoring the views of the impressive peaks of Half Dome and El Capitan that were seen when the park was founded. The reason this is necessary is because a century of aggressive (and ecologically misguided) fire suppression has caused trees to fill in many of the meadows, blocking off many of the views and trails that once crisscrossed the valley. That such meadows were created and kept open by Native Americans via periodic burnings and then by settlers through grazing is alluded to but the implications for any concept of "restoration" or "natural state" skipped over by the author. While I do not know enough about the logistics of the plan to take a position for or against this logging action, I can say that it is definitely not restoring nature as it was when the park was constructed. What it is doing is restoring the image of the park as it existed when it was popularized and propagated via promotional pamphlets, artwork, movies, and televisions. The iconic image of Half Dome and El Capitan rising over the valley is what visitors expect. Many are consumers of the "postcard vista" idea of parks, best illustrated by Mount Rushmore, and are disappointed when they do not find it. While I find such people misguided, they are at least expecting something that has been protected to a small degree (though the Valley is in pretty poor shape) but has made possible the preservation of a much larger area. </digression>.

What do all of these things have in common? They all challenge ideas of what nature and wilderness are and how we think about the boundaries and interactions between our built environment and the "other" that lies outside our comfort zone. Going back to those historians, I believe it is White who has written how nature has been defined and redefined to constitute the "other" against which we define our culture and civilization. While there are many other "others" that mark boundaries between cultures, there is definite merit behind the idea of a shifting nature/man boundary that has moved as our social, aesthetic,and economic needs have changed. But that boundary is becoming more blurred and it is easy to look behind the label and examine how true or easily made those distinctions remain. What you see when you look can tell you a lot about your frame of reference, state of mind, and cultural values, and sometimes what you see might surprise you.

Update 9/20:
Apparently Memphis, Tennessee, is also under the impression that gardens are essentially stinking, unsightly wastelands that need to be scrubbed from the community. I really do not understand these people and have no idea what this neighbor could possibly be thinking. Only two things come to mind, neither flattering. One is a Stepford Wives dystopia and the other recalls the episode of The X-Files in which a garbage monster kills members of an HOA that do not conform to a ridiculously draconian code. These people need to grow up and start addressing real problems, not attacking people trying to live healthier, be outside, and give back to their community.

Four Quick Things

First a quick update: California's legislature has passed the ban on shark fins that I wrote about a few weeks ago. It is quite likely that Governor Jerry Brown signs it.

Second, Nicholas Kristof wrote a nice piece for the NYT on Sunday that brings up a point that is not discussed enough, namely the importance of actual outdoors experiences (wilderness or not) in building a constituency and support for environmental and conservation measures. While he doesn't get into the more complicated questions of socioeconomic privilege, class, and cultural constructions of nature that are increasingly present in American society (which I briefly mentioned near the end of this post) it is nice to see a major columnist talking about this often neglected aspect of environmental movement building.

Third, a student from my alma mater has written a very nice piece for the NYT's Green Blog about his experience with the Student Conservation Association working in the wilderness of Nevada's Basin and Range country. I have a number of friends who have done summer programs through them (or with state level equivalents) and all have loved the experience. If you get the chance you should look into it.

Finally, the weirdly named BOEMRE has apparently "accomplished what it set out to do" in cleaning up the regulatory mess left by the corrupt MMS and will be disbanded into other divisions of the Interior Department including the even newer (and less awkward) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). Only time will tell if this division makes the agency more effective at carrying out its mandates and less susceptible to industry capture.

Polar Bear News

Two pieces of news about polar bears (Ursus maritimus). The first is some good news in an ongoing saga: Charles Monnett, the scientist who documented cases of drowned polar bears and was subsequently suspended by his agency, BOEMRE (the new acronym, since the Deepwater Horizon proved the final disgrace for a notoriously corrupt agency (discussed here)) has been reinstated from administrative leave. While investigations continue into why he was initially suspended and he will not be returning to the same duties, he has at least been temporarily cleared. This is something to keep watching as it develops though I wouldn't expect it to move with any great speed.

The other is much more unfortunate. A security guard working for BP shot and killed a polar bear with what appears to have been an explosive round when it wandered near a worker camp. While BP claims that the bear was killed by mistake and that the guard believed he was firing a rubber bullet to ward off the bear, it is a positive sign that the Fish and Wildlife Service is taking it seriously enough to do a preliminary investigation. There is nothing in the piece to indicate that anything other than what BP claims is the case, but polar bears are a threatened species and it is important to determine the exact circumstances of the death, whether it was preventable (assuming it was unintentional), and whether it was justified.

Threatened and endangered species receive a large amount of protection from the Endangered Species Act. There is a broadly construed ban on any kind of harm to individuals without a permit, and even then allowances are made only for specific numbers taken in specific ways (for example, a dam might be allowed to "take" 2,000 salmon via turbine action per year or a construction project might be permitted to take a nesting pair of owls via habitat disruption). While there is an exemption for lethal force when necessary to defend human life, that does not appear to be the case here, and scaring it off would have been the appropriate and justified choice for the safety of workers and the bear. The polar bear was listed as threatened due to loss of habitat from climate change and much has been written about that threat to the bear including how best to respond to protect it. However, once listed as threatened, unless specific exemptions have been written into the listing rule, the species is broadly protected from any type of prohibited action. In other words: once listed, it doesn't matter why. Any harm is prohibited harm, even if it isn't the kind that caused the listing. This is another piece that bears (unfortunate pun that wouldn't happen in many other languages) watching though I expect it to disappear into the ether without much closure.

Sharks and Rhinos

Last week I saw two articles that I thought would be interesting to juxtapose. The first is a piece from the NYTimes on the increase in the theft of rhino horns as trade in legal horns has become more difficult (the increased CITES and EU restrictions have also apparently increased poaching, but are on the whole a positive. Rather than loosen restrictions it would be best to increase commitments and support for conservation and anti-poaching forces and economic development to alleviate the poverty that makes poaching and trafficking a desirable way to earn a living). The second was a short piece in the LATimes about the advancement of a ban on the sale of shark fins through a legislative committee in the state senate.

First off, some housekeeping: I am not a vegetarian, though I do try to eat responsibly. I also am not opposed to hunting or fishing generally (and have partaken in those activities), but especially not as game management techniques where other top predators have been removed or when dealing with invasive species. I also do not want to get into a big philosophical or ethical discussion about the propriety of having all these specimens of endangered animals floating around the developed world. Yes, specimens are necessary for scientific study and the expansion of knowledge (and increased awareness of biodiversity). Yes, more specimens were taken in the days of colonialism than were necessary, and for less than noble motives. But they were and we have to move forward from that point. You can't return a stuffed rhino to the wild, any parallel to the Elgin Marbles is superficial and ultimately false.

Now, onto the actual comparison. Both rhino horn and shark fin soup are traditional Chinese medicines and foods. That's pretty well established. However, there is much more general condemnation of the former than the latter. While use of rhino horn is portrayed as ridiculous, observe the outlandish list of purported powers it has, "aphrodisiac," cure for cancer coupled with the commentary from a scientist that ingestion would be "about as healthful 'as chewing on your fingernails.'" There is no room for cultural differences. It is represented as dangerous, destructive, and misguided, based on superstition not on science.

Contrast that with the proposed ban on shark fins. While there is already a ban in other western states, the battle in California is getting heated as it constitutes a much larger economy than its Pacific neighbors. In the short piece on finning, the dispute is framed as conservationists versus those seeking to preserve their cultural heritage (whether perceived or constructed, shark fin was long a food for the elites in certain regions and has only become more widely consumed as technology and economic development have reduced costs and increased incomes). While the tone of the article does convey a bit of he said/she said, it does ultimately appear to come down on the side of science and conservation, strengthened by the quote from a state assemblyman who is originally from China, grew up with shark fin soup, and has since come to reject it (as have a number of other prominent Chinese people including Yao Ming). The accompanying photograph illustrating a shark finning vessel, lines strung up with fins (sharks presumably lying dead and bleeding on the ocean floor) also serves to make the point: finning is brutal, cruel, and damaging to the health of ocean ecosystems (as well as to the sharks). It's also incredibly unhealthy for human consumption. As top predators, sharks accumulate toxins such as mercury at very high levels via biomagnification. In many species these toxins can reach hazardous levels.

I know that's a lot of material to pull out of a blog item, but I thought it made for an interesting comparison, and one that gets back to one of the things I want this blog to explore: what is the real value of nature and the biodiversity of life? Does it have its own inherent value? Is it simply a social construct? Does one culture or society's value or construction take precedence over another's? Should it? What are the processes and circumstances that lead to a change in these constructions and how can they be enabled or impeded?

None of these have clear answers, and answering one might destabilizing your answer to another, but they are definitely worth thinking about. I try to keep them in mind as I go through life (even when I'm not writing here, which I should do more often) and I hope you do too.

Mining and the Media

A few weeks ago Interior Secretary Ken Salazar extended a moratorium on new mining claims on federal lands surrounding the Grand Canyon. The effect of this was to temporarily extend the suspension of new claims he imposed two years ago for an additional six months pending (unnecessary) additional scientific review. The ultimate outcome is likely to be the withdrawal of these lands for 20 years (which is the longest they can be removed from availability under current law without additional statutory action). This is a significant event because it will close off most of the threat of uranium and other hard rock mining in that area. There are a few existing, but inactive, mines that might be allowed to reopen (it will depend on whether they are deemed abandoned claims), and a few other new claims that might be perfected, but most of the claims that were filed near the end of the Bush presidency are likely to be worthless. This is because withdrawals of public lands are always made subject to valid existing rights. However, a right is not valid and existing just by being made. The way hard rock mining works in the United States is that a claimant must show that he or she (or it for corporations) has made an actual discovery of some mineral, has taken steps to physically occupy the land, and that the discovery would actually be economically rational to develop. It is not enough to say "it is likely that there is uranium on this claim" or "we believe uranium is on this claim" or "we want to look for uranium here." If there has not been an actual discovery on the date of withdrawal then the claim is not a prior valid right. (This is relevant to closed mines because if they were closed due to economic reasons, whether commodity price or cost of extraction or some combination, and remained closed for a long enough period, the right might have been abandoned. There is currently litigation over whether the current owners of those interests are able to "revive" their mining claims or if they are now subject to the moratorium).

However, what I am more interested in today is not the actual issue (which, while technically complicated, is fairly easy to give a brief overview of) but how it is covered. National media is generally quite bad at environmental reporting. This is particularly true of the New York Times (the Washington Post rarely even bothers so is hardly worth mentioning) which often reports from its DC or New York desks and relies on email statements (though since this was a DC action it is actually appropriate here). It also often does little to provide background or context for its pieces (its Green blog is generally better but rarely gets published in the print edition, unlike many of its other blogs). The Los Angeles Times does a better job of providing context and background, even in short articles, and relies much less on he said/she said and false equivalencies (lazy journalistic practices common in environmental reporting, most notoriously when discussing climate change). It also often sends reporters to the actual vicinity to do articles (and being located in the West tends to cover more issues in more depth since they are more likely to be relevant to the readership).

What makes this issue such a good one for contrast is that both papers covered a similar event that is fairly easy to explain, with a complicated but generalizable backstory, and predictable views on both sides. Given that, it's stunning to see how different the articles (both short) were in their treatment.

The NYT relied on a summary of Secretary Salazar's statement for a full half of the article, provided a single sentence indicating this was part of a continuing issue, then dove right into discussion of the economic impact on uranium prices and demand (with a nod to the Fukushima Daiichi reactor crisis in Japan, irrelevant as the uranium market is only incidental to the issue in the article). It then spends the remaining half of the article presenting the issue as a standard partisan Democrat/Republican and environmentalist/business dispute. Note how it said that environmentalists had been displeased with Secretary Salazar for earlier decisions and implies that this might appease them. It also finds two Representatives (one of whom did not represent Arizona) to give their opposing take. While I agree with Rep. Grijalva, I find it lazy of the reporter to rely on predictable talking points that could have been about any environmental issue. There was no effort to get additional comments or place either of them in a broader context. There is also no mention whatsoever of the General Mining Act of 1872, which is the driving force behind the issue in the first place. For John Broder, a report nominally on an environmental beat (but who often writes on the DC "goings on") it is a particularly disappointing piece, as if he decided to phone it in.

The LAT did a better (but not perfect) job. It also managed to do this in a much shorter article, indicating that good reporting is not necessarily longer reporting. It starts by coming straight out and saying that a long term withdrawal is the final goal and contextualizes it by reporting on the 2000% increase in claims. It also discusses the reasons people (and not just environmentalists) are opposed to mining: watershed protection, contamination, and aesthetics. It also goes to a bit more effort to get comments. While it, too, solicited comments from both sides, it at least sought out members of interest groups (a local conservationist and a mining industry lobbyist) and said that people and politicians were on both sides. Good job for engaging in slightly better and more thorough reporting. More bonus points for reporting that this is just one of many parks under threat from such activities on its borders (unlike the NYT which allows readers to think this is an isolated incident of interest to only those directly invested in the Grand Canyon). The LAT also ends with a reference to the GML and how it is the source of this and other controversies. While it is a bit trite, omits the source of the relevant controversy, and appears to be an afterthought, at least it is there. More context would be nice, as would weaving it into the actual coverage, but beggars can't be choosers.

Unfortunately the LAT apparently decided that it should remove a reference to the actual issue for final publication, it did appear in the earlier online version, rather than expand and clarify it. Read the final two sentences and compare them to my brief introduction at the top of this post. It wouldn't be that hard to flesh out what was written there to make it informative and correct, but rather than do that the paper axed the paragraph. I suppose that's better than leaving in the misleading and incomplete thought, but it made the final product much weaker and less useful than it could have been.

Overall grades for these articles:
NYT: D
LAT: B-